Mohd. Amin bin Ismail

Mohd. Amin bin Ismail

The Court held the trial judge properly evaluated the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence and was entitled to find appellant had possession, control and knowledge of the drugs and that trafficking was proved beyond reasonable doubt; the mere mention of a third party 'Jamil' without particulars did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
P-05(M)-17-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Amin bin Ismail; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 January 2020
Case Number
P-05(M)-17-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Appeal Judgment of Court of Appeal (rayuan)
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction and mandatory death sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession, Knowledge, Trafficking, Mandatory Death Penalty, Search and Seizure, Adverse Inference Under S114(g) Evidence Act 1950, Appellate Review of Credibility, Chain of Custody
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Possession Knowledge Trafficking Mandatory Death Penalty Search and Seizure +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Amin bin Ismail

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Appeal Judgment of Court of Appeal (rayuan)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant had actual possession, control and knowledge of the seized cannabis
  2. 2 Whether the failure to investigate or call a third party ('Jamil') justified an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved trafficking beyond reasonable doubt to attract mandatory death under s39B ADB 1952

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the trial judge properly evaluated the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence and was entitled to find appellant had possession, control and knowledge of the drugs and that trafficking was proved beyond reasonable doubt; the mere mention of a third party 'Jamil' without particulars did not oblige the prosecution to investigate nor justify an adverse inference under s114(g); appellate intervention was unwarranted given the overwhelming evidence and deference due to the trial judge's credibility findings.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction and mandatory death sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and sentence of the High Court (mandatory death under s39B(2) ADB 1952) affirmed