[ ] 1. ) MUHAMAD BIN NOR AZIZ 2. ) MUHAMAD SHAFIQ ALIFF BIN MAZLAN 3. ) MOHD NAZRUL AIMAN BIN MAHADI 4. ) MUHAMMAD IZZAT SYAFIQ BIN ISHAK

[ ] 1. ) MUHAMAD BIN NOR AZIZ 2. ) MUHAMAD SHAFIQ ALIFF BIN MAZLAN 3. ) MOHD NAZRUL AIMAN BIN MAHADI 4. ) MUHAMMAD IZZAT SYAFIQ BIN ISHAK

The court held that the prosecution proved beyond prima facie standards that OKT1 and OKT2 had possession, knowledge and jointly distributed the drugs seized from the MyVi (uncontested chemical analysis, credible eyewitness officer SP11, intact chain of custody and circumstances indicating sale), warranting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-45A-24-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Muhamad bin Nor Aziz; Defendant: Muhamad Shafiq Aliff bin Mazlan; Defendant: Mohd Nazrul Aiman bin Mahadi; Defendant: Muhammad Izzat Syafiq bin Ishak
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 July 2022
Case Number
WA-45A-24-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment
Outcome
OKT1 and OKT2 convicted on counts relating to MyVi seizure (45A-23-08/2020 and 45-17-03/2020). OKT3 and OKT4 acquitted and discharged on counts relating to Flexus premises (45A-24-08/2020 and 45-16-03/2020).
Legal Topics
Possession, Distribution (trafficking), Chain of Custody, Prima Facie Burden, Joint Liability (section 34), Adverse Inference (section 114(g))
Criminal Law Narcotics Law Poisons Regulation Evidence Law Possession Distribution (trafficking) Chain of Custody Prima Facie Burden +2 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 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Muhamad bin Nor Aziz

Defendant

Muhamad Shafiq Aliff bin Mazlan

Defendant

Mohd Nazrul Aiman bin Mahadi

Defendant

Muhammad Izzat Syafiq bin Ishak

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved the seized substances were controlled drugs/poisons and established chain of custody
  2. 2 Whether each accused had possession and knowledge of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved distribution/trafficking and joint liability under section 34

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the prosecution proved beyond prima facie standards that OKT1 and OKT2 had possession, knowledge and jointly distributed the drugs seized from the MyVi (uncontested chemical analysis, credible eyewitness officer SP11, intact chain of custody and circumstances indicating sale), warranting conviction under section 39B(1) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and section 30(3) Poisons Act 1952; however, the prosecution failed to prove exclusive possession or prima facie case against OKT1–4 for the Flexus premises seizures given other persons with access (B2 and Pijo) and the absence of their evidence, leading to acquittal of OKT3 and OKT4 and no call to answer on those counts for OKT1...

Court Disposition

OKT1 and OKT2 convicted on counts relating to MyVi seizure (45A-23-08/2020 and 45-17-03/2020). OKT3 and OKT4 acquitted and discharged on counts relating to Flexus premises (45A-24-08/2020 and 45-16-03/2020).

Orders

  • OKT1 and OKT2 convicted under section 39B(1) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (case 45A-23-08/2020) and sentenced to death (hanged by the neck until dead).
  • OKT1 and OKT2 convicted under section 30(3) Poisons Act 1952 (case 45-17-03/2020) and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment each, effective from date of arrest.