PENDAKWARAYA ROMZI BIN MAMAT

PENDAKWARAYA ROMZI BIN MAMAT

The prosecution failed to prove possession (custody, control and knowledge) because evidence showed other occupants and use of the car by others making exclusive control unproven; there were material contradictions about where the urine sample was taken producing a break in the chain of custody; consequently the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case on either the s.6 or s.15(1)(a) charges and the accused must be acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.

Citation
BA-82D-03-10/2017 & BA-82D-01-01/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Defendant: Romzi bin Mamat
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 February 2020
Case Number
BA-82D-03-10/2017 & BA-82D-01-01/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged of both charges under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; bail returned.
Legal Topics
Possession, Chain of Custody, Prima Facie Burden, Toxicology Evidence, Search and Seizure
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession Chain of Custody Prima Facie Burden Toxicology Evidence Search and Seizure

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Romzi bin Mamat

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved possession (custody, control and knowledge) of the cannabis
  2. 2 Whether chain of custody for the seized plant material was continuous and reliable
  3. 3 Whether the urine sample's provenance and handling were proven so as to establish use of a controlled drug

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove possession (custody, control and knowledge) because evidence showed other occupants and use of the car by others making exclusive control unproven; there were material contradictions about where the urine sample was taken producing a break in the chain of custody; consequently the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case on either the s.6 or s.15(1)(a) charges and the accused must be acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged of both charges under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; bail returned.

Orders

  • Accused Romzi bin Mamat is discharged and acquitted of the charge under section 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952.
  • Accused Romzi bin Mamat is discharged and acquitted of the charge under section 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952.