Mohd Izad Bin Matap

Mohd Izad Bin Matap

The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the prosecution proved custody, control and knowledge of the drugs and that the quantities supported an inference of trafficking; the defence evidence (including D22) was internally inconsistent, contradicted by SD2's plea and objective evidence and thus unreliable; no miscarriage of justice shown and appellate interference was unwarranted; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Citation
B-05(SH)-180-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Izad bin Matap; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 November 2025
Case Number
B-05(SH)-180-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Knowledge and Possession, Credibility of Witnesses, Appellate Review of Factual Findings, Statutory Declaration (d22), Adverse Inference, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics Law Evidence Law Procedure Trafficking Possession Knowledge and Possession Credibility of Witnesses +4 more

Case Brief

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Izad bin Matap

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs
  2. 2 Whether the quantity and circumstances established trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misappreciated or failed to consider defence evidence (D22) under s182A CPC

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the prosecution proved custody, control and knowledge of the drugs and that the quantities supported an inference of trafficking; the defence evidence (including D22) was internally inconsistent, contradicted by SD2's plea and objective evidence and thus unreliable; no miscarriage of justice shown and appellate interference was unwarranted; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Conviction and sentence of the High Court affirmed