MUHAMMAD ARIF BIN MAJID [ ]

MUHAMMAD ARIF BIN MAJID [ ]

The Court held that the car was under the exclusive control of the appellants at the material time, appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption of possession under s.37(d) ADB on the balance of probabilities, evidence of identical drugs found on their persons supported knowledge, and the large quantity (177.9g methamphetamine) justified an inference of intent to distribute; accordingly the convictions under s.39B(1)(a) ADB read with s.34 Penal Code were upheld though the death sentence was varied.

Citation
B-05(M)-154-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Muhammad Arif bin Majid; Appellant: Muhammad Fairul Lizzan bin Abu Hassan; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 October 2024
Case Number
B-05(M)-154-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Against Conviction and Sentence)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as to conviction; sentence varied
Legal Topics
Possession and Control, Presumption of Possession (s.37(d) Adb), Knowledge/mens Rea, Joint Liability (s.34 Penal Code), Definition of Distribution (s.2 Adb), Sentence Mitigation/variation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics/drug Offences Appellate Review Possession and Control Presumption of Possession (s.37(d) Adb) Knowledge/mens Rea Joint Liability (s.34 Penal Code) Definition of Distribution (s.2 Adb) +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Arif bin Majid

Appellant

Muhammad Fairul Lizzan bin Abu Hassan

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in applying the presumption of possession under s.37(d) ADB
  2. 2 Whether concealment (package in armrest) can be equated to distribution under s.2 ADB
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved joint intention (s.34 Penal Code) and knowledge of the drugs beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the car was under the exclusive control of the appellants at the material time, appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption of possession under s.37(d) ADB on the balance of probabilities, evidence of identical drugs found on their persons supported knowledge, and the large quantity (177.9g methamphetamine) justified an inference of intent to distribute; accordingly the convictions under s.39B(1)(a) ADB read with s.34 Penal Code were upheld though the death sentence was varied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as to conviction; sentence varied

Orders

  • Convictions under s.39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with s.34 Penal Code affirmed for both appellants
  • Death sentences set aside and substituted with thirty (30) years imprisonment each, to run from 7 February 2018