Muhammad Lukman bin Mohamad

Muhammad Lukman bin Mohamad

Charges 1 and 2: convictions and death sentences affirmed because the prosecution proved the presence of Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and established manufacturing, control and trafficking by credible forensic and circumstantial evidence despite lack of separate quantitative assay; Charge 3: trial judge failed to make an explicit finding whether the s37(da) presumption was rebutted, rendering the trafficking conviction unsafe, therefore conviction under s39B(1)(a) set aside and substituted with possession under s6 punishable under s39A(2), with appellate imposition of 7 years imprisonment from date of arrest and 10 strokes of whipping.

Citation
B-05(M)-452-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Perayu: Muhammad Lukman bin Mohamad; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 November 2019
Case Number
B-05(M)-452-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (dangerous Drugs Act) / Court of Appeal Decision (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part: convictions and death sentences for charges 1 and 2 affirmed; conviction for charge 3 under s39B(1)(a) set aside and substituted with conviction for possession under s6 DDA punishable under s39A(2); appellate sentence for charge 3 imposed.
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Manufacturing of Drugs, Possession, Presumption Under S37(da) DDA, Expert Chemical Analysis
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Appellate Procedure Trafficking Manufacturing of Drugs Possession Presumption Under S37(da) DDA +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Lukman bin Mohamad

Appellant / Perayu

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (dangerous Drugs Act) / Court of Appeal Decision (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether net weight/quantitative analysis of Delta-9-THC was required to sustain trafficking convictions (charges 1 and 2)
  2. 2 Whether the substances constituted lawful medicinal cannabis outside the scope of the DDA
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge failed to make required findings on rebuttal of the statutory presumption under s37(da) (charge 3)

Ratio Decidendi

Charges 1 and 2: convictions and death sentences affirmed because the prosecution proved the presence of Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and established manufacturing, control and trafficking by credible forensic and circumstantial evidence despite lack of separate quantitative assay; Charge 3: trial judge failed to make an explicit finding whether the s37(da) presumption was rebutted, rendering the trafficking conviction unsafe, therefore conviction under s39B(1)(a) set aside and substituted with possession under s6 punishable under s39A(2), with appellate imposition of 7 years imprisonment from date of arrest and 10 strokes of whipping.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part: convictions and death sentences for charges 1 and 2 affirmed; conviction for charge 3 under s39B(1)(a) set aside and substituted with conviction for possession under s6 DDA punishable under s39A(2); appellate sentence for charge 3 imposed.

Orders

  • Affirmed convictions and death sentences on 1st and 2nd charges under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Set aside conviction under section 39B(1)(a) on 3rd charge