HISSHAM BIN AHMAD

HISSHAM BIN AHMAD

The court found prosecution proved every element of s15(1)(a) beyond reasonable doubt: the urine sample was shown to belong to the accused via an unbroken chain of custody, the urine testing and laboratory analysis complied with s31A, Amphetamine and Methamphetamine (scheduled drugs) were detected, the presumption under s37(k) applied and was not rebutted because the defence failed to call material evidence (Dr MM Smith) or produce credible contemporaneous proof; therefore accused convicted and sentenced.

Citation
JA-82D-30-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: HISSHAM BIN AHMAD
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 June 2024
Case Number
JA-82D-30-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (s15(1)(a)) / Trial Conviction and Sentencing at Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Guilty; convicted under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
Legal Topics
Self Administration, Urine Testing (s31 A), Chain of Custody, Presumption S37(k), Recall of Witnesses (s425, S173), Sentencing of Public Officer
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedural Law Self Administration Urine Testing (s31 A) Chain of Custody Presumption S37(k) +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 8 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecutor

HISSHAM BIN AHMAD

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (s15(1)(a)) / Trial Conviction and Sentencing at Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the urine sample belonged to the accused
  2. 2 Whether the urine test complied with s31A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  3. 3 Whether Amphetamine and Methamphetamine are scheduled dangerous drugs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found prosecution proved every element of s15(1)(a) beyond reasonable doubt: the urine sample was shown to belong to the accused via an unbroken chain of custody, the urine testing and laboratory analysis complied with s31A, Amphetamine and Methamphetamine (scheduled drugs) were detected, the presumption under s37(k) applied and was not rebutted because the defence failed to call material evidence (Dr MM Smith) or produce credible contemporaneous proof; therefore accused convicted and sentenced.

Court Disposition

Guilty; convicted under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Orders

  • Fine RM4500 or in default 10 months imprisonment
  • Three years AADK supervision