Muhammad Fairul Lizzan B Abu Hassan [ ]

Muhammad Fairul Lizzan B Abu Hassan [ ]

The Court held the High Court correctly applied s.37(d) ADB because appellants had custody and control of the vehicle at the material time, similar drugs were found on their persons corroborating knowledge, appellants failed to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities, and the quantity and concealment supported an inference of intent to distribute under s.2 and s.39B ADB; conviction under s.39B(1)(a) read with s.34 Penal Code was therefore upheld though sentence was varied.

Citation
B-05(M)-148-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Perayu: Muhammad Fairul Lizzan bin Abu Hassan; Perayu: Muhammad Arif bin Majid; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 October 2024
Case Number
B-05(M)-148-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Shah Alam
Outcome
Convictions upheld; sentence varied on appeal
Legal Topics
Possession and Control of Drugs, Presumption of Possession Under S.37(d) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Knowledge of Illicit Contents, Distribution/trafficking (s.2 and S.39 B Adb), Joint Liability (s.34 Penal Code), Chain of Custody, Sentencing Discretion
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Possession and Control of Drugs Presumption of Possession Under S.37(d) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Knowledge of Illicit Contents Distribution/trafficking (s.2 and S.39 B Adb) Joint Liability (s.34 Penal Code) +2 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Fairul Lizzan bin Abu Hassan

Perayu

Muhammad Arif bin Majid

Perayu

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Shah Alam

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge erred in applying 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 common intention under s.34 Penal Code and knowledge of appellants regarding the drugs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the High Court correctly applied s.37(d) ADB because appellants had custody and control of the vehicle at the material time, similar drugs were found on their persons corroborating knowledge, appellants failed to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities, and the quantity and concealment supported an inference of intent to distribute under s.2 and s.39B ADB; conviction under s.39B(1)(a) read with s.34 Penal Code was therefore upheld though sentence was varied.

Court Disposition

Convictions upheld; sentence varied on appeal

Orders

  • Convictions under s.39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with s.34 Penal Code are upheld
  • Death sentence imposed by High Court set aside and replaced with 30 years imprisonment starting from 7 February 2018 and 15 strokes of the rotan