[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] LEE YU HUAT

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] LEE YU HUAT

Prosecution failed to establish prima facie case for trafficking under s39B DDA because (a) evidence raised reasonable doubt as to exclusive possession due to contemporaneous indication of other users of the vehicle, (b) prosecution did not prove that the compartment was specially constructed for concealment through competent expert evidence, and (c) prosecution failed to call material public witnesses leading to a justified adverse inference; however the prosecution proved possession elements for two s12 DDA counts based on recovered items and chemist report, leading to conviction on those counts and concurrent sentences of 10 months each effective from date of arrest.

Citation
WA-45-9-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Lee Yu Huat
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 December 2023
Case Number
WA-45-9-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged of trafficking charge under s39B DDA; convicted on two counts of possession under s12 DDA with concurrent custody sentences.
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Possession of Dangerous Drugs, Presumption of Trafficking (s37), Adverse Inference for Non‑calling Witnesses, Chain of Custody, Expert Evidence on Vehicle Modification, Remand and Investigative Conduct
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Drug Trafficking Possession of Dangerous Drugs Presumption of Trafficking (s37) Adverse Inference for Non‑calling Witnesses Chain of Custody +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Applicant

Lee Yu Huat

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had possession of the drugs found in the car and apartment
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of trafficking under s37(da)(xvi) DDA applies
  3. 3 Whether the compartment in the vehicle was a specially constructed concealment (s37(h) DDA) and whether expert proof was provided

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish prima facie case for trafficking under s39B DDA because (a) evidence raised reasonable doubt as to exclusive possession due to contemporaneous indication of other users of the vehicle, (b) prosecution did not prove that the compartment was specially constructed for concealment through competent expert evidence, and (c) prosecution failed to call material public witnesses leading to a justified adverse inference; however the prosecution proved possession elements for two s12 DDA counts based on recovered items and chemist report, leading to conviction on those counts and concurrent sentences of 10 months each effective from date of arrest.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged of trafficking charge under s39B DDA; convicted on two counts of possession under s12 DDA with concurrent custody sentences.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged of the charge under s39B(1) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
  • Accused ordered to enter defence on two charges under s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and elected to plead guilty to both.