T-05(M)-33-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

T-05(M)-33-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the prosecution proved custody and control of the bag by the appellant, the ketamine (7,831.17g) was concealed within the bag and chain of custody and analysis were reliable; therefore the statutory presumption under s37(d) applied and the appellant failed to rebut it or establish innocent carrier...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
T-05(M)-33-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Syed Ibrahim Shahul Hameed; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 April 2022
Case Number
T-05(M)-33-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (dangerous Drugs) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Presumption of Knowledge, Innocent Carrier Defence, Wilful Blindness, Chain of Custody, Capital Sentence
Criminal Law Drug Control Law Evidence Law Appellate Review Trafficking Possession Presumption of Knowledge Innocent Carrier Defence +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Syed Ibrahim Shahul Hameed

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (dangerous Drugs) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presumption of knowledge under s37(d) DDA was rebutted by the defence
  2. 2 Whether elements of trafficking under s2 DDA were established
  3. 3 Whether the defence of innocent carrier was made out or whether there was wilful blindness

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the prosecution proved custody and control of the bag by the appellant, the ketamine (7,831.17g) was concealed within the bag and chain of custody and analysis were reliable; therefore the statutory presumption under s37(d) applied and the appellant failed to rebut it or establish innocent carrier status, wilful blindness was made out and the quantity/packaging supported trafficking under s2, so the conviction and death sentence were safe and upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and death sentence under section 39B(2) affirmed