SER CHEE YEW PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

SER CHEE YEW PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Prosecution proved custody and control of six boxes containing 83,408 grams of methamphetamine; invocation of the statutory presumption under s.37(d) DDA shifted burden to appellant to rebut knowledge on balance of probabilities which he failed to do; receiving/importing such a large quantity falls within the definition of trafficking under s.2 DDA; omissions alleged (non-viewing of CCTV, non-explicit finding at end of defence) did not prejudice the defence and did not vitiate the conviction, therefore appeal must be dismissed and conviction and death sentence affirmed.

Citation
W-05(M)-171-04/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
APPELLANT: Ser Chee Yew; RESPONDENT: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 August 2021
Case Number
W-05(M)-171-04/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Statutory Presumption of Knowledge, Sentencing (death Penalty)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Trafficking Possession Statutory Presumption of Knowledge Sentencing (death Penalty)

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

Parties

Ser Chee Yew

APPELLANT

Public Prosecutor

RESPONDENT

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge wrongly found named witnesses (Steven and Ah Seong) to be fictitious
  2. 2 Whether failure to view CCTV (Exhibit P34) prejudiced the defence
  3. 3 Whether trial judge failed to make a finding on the element of trafficking at the end of the defence's case

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution proved custody and control of six boxes containing 83,408 grams of methamphetamine; invocation of the statutory presumption under s.37(d) DDA shifted burden to appellant to rebut knowledge on balance of probabilities which he failed to do; receiving/importing such a large quantity falls within the definition of trafficking under s.2 DDA; omissions alleged (non-viewing of CCTV, non-explicit finding at end of defence) did not prejudice the defence and did not vitiate the conviction, therefore appeal must be dismissed and conviction and death sentence affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and death sentence under s.39B DDA affirmed