PENDAKWARAYA TAMIM AZMI BIN ABDUL HAMID

PENDAKWARAYA TAMIM AZMI BIN ABDUL HAMID

Court held prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge for counts 1 and 2 because material gaps and contradictions (notably inconsistent evidence on discovery and keys) and failure to call a material witness (Norfaizan) whose presence and access to premises/vehicle could negate alleged exclusive possession;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PA-45A-3-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Defendant: TAMIM AZMI BIN ABDUL HAMID
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 January 2022
Case Number
PA-45A-3-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial (drug Offences) / End of Prosecution; Verdict and Sentencing Stage
Outcome
Counts 1 and 2 acquitted and accused discharged; Count 3 convicted
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Admissibility of Hearsay (s32), Information Leading to Discovery (s27), Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution, Chain of Custody, Search and Seizure, Sentencing
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession Trafficking Admissibility of Hearsay (s32) Information Leading to Discovery (s27) Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution +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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

TAMIM AZMI BIN ABDUL HAMID

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial (drug Offences) / End of Prosecution; Verdict and Sentencing Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved possession and knowledge for three counts under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  2. 2 Admissibility of a recorded statement of absent witness under s32(1)(i) Evidence Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether information from accused invoked s27 Evidence Act 1950 to link accused to discoveries

Ratio Decidendi

Court held prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge for counts 1 and 2 because material gaps and contradictions (notably inconsistent evidence on discovery and keys) and failure to call a material witness (Norfaizan) whose presence and access to premises/vehicle could negate alleged exclusive possession; s32 application was refused for inadequate search efforts. However, prosecution proved count 3 beyond reasonable doubt: drugs of 50.20g Cannabis were found in accused's sling bag with his wallet and ID in proximity, establishing physical possession and knowledge, invoking statutory presumption; accused convicted on count 3 and sentenced accordingly.

Court Disposition

Counts 1 and 2 acquitted and accused discharged; Count 3 convicted

Orders

  • Counts 1 and 2 dismissed and accused released on those counts
  • Count 3: convicted under s6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; sentenced to 12 years imprisonment from 2 June 2016