UMAR HAQIM BIN NURLIZAN

UMAR HAQIM BIN NURLIZAN

Court accepted the primary police witness’s direct evidence that the accused was physically observed cutting cannabis at the upstairs table and that additional cannabis was found in a blue bag in the accused’s room; that evidence, together with the weights seized, established possession and control and invoked the statutory presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) DDA 1952; defence explanations (third‑party bag, denial, alleged failure to record the cutter) did not raise reasonable doubt, therefore conviction and mandatory death sentence under s.39B(2) followed.

Citation
45A-42-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor (Pendakwa Raya); Defendant: Umar Haqim bin Nurlizan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Case Number
45A-42-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence / Judgment (conviction and Sentencing)
Outcome
Accused convicted on both counts and sentenced to death (mandatory hanging)
Legal Topics
Cannabis Possession, Presumption of Trafficking (s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Section 27 Evidence Act Admissions and Conduct, Caution Under Section 37 B(1)(b), Search and Seizure, Possession and Control
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Cannabis Possession Presumption of Trafficking (s.37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Section 27 Evidence Act Admissions and Conduct +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor (Pendakwa Raya)

Prosecutor

Umar Haqim bin Nurlizan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence / Judgment (conviction and Sentencing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had possession and control of cannabis found on the table and in the blue bag in his room
  2. 2 Whether statutory presumption of trafficking applied given the weights seized
  3. 3 Admissibility and evidential weight of the accused’s conduct and any statements under Section 27 Evidence Act and Section 37B(1)(b) ADB 1952

Ratio Decidendi

Court accepted the primary police witness’s direct evidence that the accused was physically observed cutting cannabis at the upstairs table and that additional cannabis was found in a blue bag in the accused’s room; that evidence, together with the weights seized, established possession and control and invoked the statutory presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) DDA 1952; defence explanations (third‑party bag, denial, alleged failure to record the cutter) did not raise reasonable doubt, therefore conviction and mandatory death sentence under s.39B(2) followed.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on both counts and sentenced to death (mandatory hanging)

Orders

  • Accused Umar Haqim bin Nurlizan convicted of offences under Section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced to death pursuant to Section 39B(2)
  • Case disposed upon sentencing