[ ] SOE SOE

[ ] SOE SOE

Prosecution proved that the seized substances were methamphetamine and that they were in the accused's custody and control; invoking s.37(d) DDA the court presumed knowledge of the drug but prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case of distribution because there was no evidence of overt acts or movement showing intent to distribute. Accordingly the court ordered an amended charge of possession under s.12(2)/39A(2) Akta 234, to which the accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment from date of arrest.

Citation
DA-45A-2-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Defendant: Soe Soe
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 November 2022
Case Number
DA-45A-2-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence (distribution/possession) / Trial — Prosecution Closed; No Prima Facie for Distribution; Accused Convicted on Amended Possession Charge
Outcome
Prosecution failed to establish prima facie case for distribution; prima facie possession established; accused convicted on amended charge of possession under s.12(2)/39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
Legal Topics
Possession, Distribution, Prima Facie Assessment Under S.180 KTJ, Presumption of Knowledge (s.37(d) DDA 1952), Forensic Analysis and Homogenization, Chain of Custody, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession Distribution Prima Facie Assessment Under S.180 KTJ Presumption of Knowledge (s.37(d) DDA 1952) Forensic Analysis and Homogenization +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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Soe Soe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence (distribution/possession) / Trial — Prosecution Closed; No Prima Facie for Distribution; Accused Convicted on Amended Possession Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized substance was a dangerous drug and the same as exhibited in court
  2. 2 Whether the accused had custody and control (possession) of the drug
  3. 3 Whether the accused had knowledge of the drug (mens rea)

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution proved that the seized substances were methamphetamine and that they were in the accused's custody and control; invoking s.37(d) DDA the court presumed knowledge of the drug but prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case of distribution because there was no evidence of overt acts or movement showing intent to distribute. Accordingly the court ordered an amended charge of possession under s.12(2)/39A(2) Akta 234, to which the accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment from date of arrest.

Court Disposition

Prosecution failed to establish prima facie case for distribution; prima facie possession established; accused convicted on amended charge of possession under s.12(2)/39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952

Orders

  • Prosecution case closed; no prima facie for original distribution charge under s.39B(1)(a) Akta 234
  • Accused called to answer amended charge under s.12(2)/39A(2) Akta 234