MUHAMMAD HAFIZ MUKRIMIN BIN ABDULKEH@NORHISYAMUDDIN

MUHAMMAD HAFIZ MUKRIMIN BIN ABDULKEH@NORHISYAMUDDIN

The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge materially misdirected by failing to consider central defence evidence (Exhibits D74/D75 and SD2's unchallenged testimony), by overlooking inconsistent prosecutorial positions about the informant, and by failing to require or note basic investigative steps (notably phone analysis) that could have established the existence and role of an independent trafficker 'Pok Ya'; those omissions, combined with improper reliance on signature on the search form and an unsustainable application of wilful blindness, rendered the convictions unsafe and therefore were quashed and the accused was acquitted.

Citation
W-05(M)-438-12/2020 & W-05(M)-439-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/perayu: Muhammad Hafiz Mukrimin bin Abdulkeh @ Norhisyamuddin; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 October 2021
Case Number
W-05(M)-438-12/2020 & W-05(M)-439-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Court of Appeal Decision (allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; appellant acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Innocent Carrier Defence, Wilful Blindness, Presumption Under S37(d) ADB 1952, Investigative Omissions, Chain of Custody, Radhi Direction
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Appellate Procedure Drug Trafficking Innocent Carrier Defence Wilful Blindness Presumption Under S37(d) ADB 1952 +3 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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Hafiz Mukrimin bin Abdulkeh @ Norhisyamuddin

Appellant/perayu

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Court of Appeal Decision (allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge erred in failing to consider defence documentary exhibits and SD2 testimony
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved knowledge, possession, control and element of distribution beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether accused was an innocent carrier or wilfully blind

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge materially misdirected by failing to consider central defence evidence (Exhibits D74/D75 and SD2's unchallenged testimony), by overlooking inconsistent prosecutorial positions about the informant, and by failing to require or note basic investigative steps (notably phone analysis) that could have established the existence and role of an independent trafficker 'Pok Ya'; those omissions, combined with improper reliance on signature on the search form and an unsustainable application of wilful blindness, rendered the convictions unsafe and therefore were quashed and the accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; appellant acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Convictions and death sentences in both charges set aside
  • Muhammad Hafiz Mukrimin bin Abdulkeh @ Norhisyamuddin acquitted and discharged of both charges