WOO WUI SEONG [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

WOO WUI SEONG [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

The Court held the prosecution proved actual possession beyond reasonable doubt by proximity, exhibits and witness evidence; non-production of NTT's s.112 statement did not justify an adverse inference under s.114(g) because there was no suppression and the prosecution's case was otherwise complete; once possession and statutory weight were proved the trial judge was required to invoke the s.37(da) presumption of trafficking which is rebuttable on the balance of probabilities; thus convictions and mandatory sentences were correctly entered and affirmed.

Citation
J-05(M)-326-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Woo Wui Seong; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 February 2021
Case Number
J-05(M)-326-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Statutory Presumption, Adverse Inference, Mandatory Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Appellate Review Possession Trafficking Statutory Presumption Adverse Inference +1 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woo Wui Seong

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case of possession and trafficking
  2. 2 Whether the accused or his girlfriend had possession or access to seized drugs
  3. 3 Whether failure to produce a witness statement (s.112) warranted an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the prosecution proved actual possession beyond reasonable doubt by proximity, exhibits and witness evidence; non-production of NTT's s.112 statement did not justify an adverse inference under s.114(g) because there was no suppression and the prosecution's case was otherwise complete; once possession and statutory weight were proved the trial judge was required to invoke the s.37(da) presumption of trafficking which is rebuttable on the balance of probabilities; thus convictions and mandatory sentences were correctly entered and affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convictions on all four charges affirmed