SATHYA A/L VELLO

SATHYA A/L VELLO

The Court affirmed that the prosecution proved custody and control of the bags and the presence of methamphetamine; the statutory presumption under s.37(d) applied and the appellant failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; his account showed willful blindness and the Alcontara notice lacked sufficient particulars to shift the investigatory burden to the prosecution; accordingly the appellant was guilty of trafficking and the conviction and mandatory death sentence were affirmed.

Citation
B-05(M)-580-12/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Sathya a/l Vello; Respondent: Public Prosecutor; Co Accused: Ponnarasi a/p Ravi
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 January 2020
Case Number
B-05(M)-580-12/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Possession and Custody, Presumption of Knowledge (s.37(d) Dda), Innocent Carrier Defence, Alcontara Notice, Willful Blindness, Mandatory Death Sentence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics / Dangerous Drugs Law Evidence Drug Trafficking Possession and Custody Presumption of Knowledge (s.37(d) Dda) Innocent Carrier Defence Alcontara Notice +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sathya a/l Vello

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Ponnarasi a/p Ravi

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had custody and control of the drugs and thus was presumed to possess and know their nature under s.37(d) DDA
  2. 2 Whether the appellant rebutted the presumption of possession/knowledge on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the appellant raised a viable innocent carrier defence or provided a sufficient Alcontara notice identifying the true traffickers

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed that the prosecution proved custody and control of the bags and the presence of methamphetamine; the statutory presumption under s.37(d) applied and the appellant failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; his account showed willful blindness and the Alcontara notice lacked sufficient particulars to shift the investigatory burden to the prosecution; accordingly the appellant was guilty of trafficking and the conviction and mandatory death sentence were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and sentence of death affirmed by the Court of Appeal