Mohd Saifuddin bin Ab Rahman Public Prosecutor

Mohd Saifuddin bin Ab Rahman Public Prosecutor

The Court affirmed conviction because the prosecution proved actual possession (control, custody and knowledge) supported by credible eyewitness evidence, registration of motorcycle in appellant's name, discovery of a red bag in the motorcycle carrier with 4045g cannabis, and appellant's flight; the presumption under s37(da) applied and was not rebutted. The Court allowed the respondent's appeal on sentence because the trial judge imposed life imprisonment without satisfying the mandatory requirement of section 39B(2A)(d) (assistance to enforcement agency with certification), therefore life imprisonment was unavailable and the appropriate sentence under s39B(2) is death.

Citation
W-05(SH)-205-04/2018 & W-05(SH)-214-04/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Saifuddin bin Ab Rahman; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 September 2020
Case Number
W-05(SH)-205-04/2018 & W-05(SH)-214-04/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence (appeal Against High Court Conviction and Cross Appeal on Sentence)
Outcome
Appellant's conviction under s39B(1)(a) DDA 1952 affirmed; respondent's appeal against sentence allowed; life sentence and whipping substituted with death by hanging
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Presumption of Trafficking, Sentencing Discretion, Mandatory Sentencing Criteria
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Statutory Interpretation Trafficking Possession Presumption of Trafficking Sentencing Discretion +1 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Saifuddin bin Ab Rahman

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence (appeal Against High Court Conviction and Cross Appeal on Sentence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession (control, custody and knowledge)
  2. 2 Whether trial judge over-emphasised appellant's flight as evidence of knowledge
  3. 3 Whether trial judge adequately considered defence evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed conviction because the prosecution proved actual possession (control, custody and knowledge) supported by credible eyewitness evidence, registration of motorcycle in appellant's name, discovery of a red bag in the motorcycle carrier with 4045g cannabis, and appellant's flight; the presumption under s37(da) applied and was not rebutted. The Court allowed the respondent's appeal on sentence because the trial judge imposed life imprisonment without satisfying the mandatory requirement of section 39B(2A)(d) (assistance to enforcement agency with certification), therefore life imprisonment was unavailable and the appropriate sentence under s39B(2) is death.

Court Disposition

Appellant's conviction under s39B(1)(a) DDA 1952 affirmed; respondent's appeal against sentence allowed; life sentence and whipping substituted with death by hanging

Orders

  • Conviction under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 affirmed
  • Respondent's appeal against sentence allowed