1. ) QUI JIERU 2. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ) QUI JIERU

1. ) QUI JIERU 2. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ) QUI JIERU

Court affirmed conviction because appellant was willfully blind and failed to rebut statutory presumption of possession under s.37(d); her purported Alcontara notice lacked sufficient particulars and did not trigger investigative obligations; trial judge did not apply double presumptions; s.39B(2A)(d) was not satisfied so life sentence was inappropriate and substituted with death penalty.

Citation
B-05(SH)-33-01/2019 & B-05(H)-620-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant; Respondent (cross Appeal): Qui Jieru; Respondent; Appellant (cross Appeal): Public Prosecutor
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Case Number
B-05(SH)-33-01/2019 & B-05(H)-620-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Conviction affirmed; life sentence set aside and replaced with death penalty
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Presumptions of Law, Alcontara Notice, Willful Blindness, Statutory Interpretation S39 B(2 A), Death Penalty Vs Life Imprisonment
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Sentencing Evidence Trafficking Possession Presumptions of Law Alcontara Notice +3 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Qui Jieru

Appellant; Respondent (cross Appeal)

Public Prosecutor

Respondent; Appellant (cross Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was an innocent carrier or willfully blind to drugs concealed in her bag
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge applied double presumptions under s.37(d) and s.37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  3. 3 Whether appellant gave a valid Alcontara notice requiring investigation of third parties (Daymen/Stanly)

Ratio Decidendi

Court affirmed conviction because appellant was willfully blind and failed to rebut statutory presumption of possession under s.37(d); her purported Alcontara notice lacked sufficient particulars and did not trigger investigative obligations; trial judge did not apply double presumptions; s.39B(2A)(d) was not satisfied so life sentence was inappropriate and substituted with death penalty.

Court Disposition

Conviction affirmed; life sentence set aside and replaced with death penalty

Orders

  • Conviction for trafficking under s.39B affirmed
  • Life imprisonment set aside and death penalty imposed