18 Dec 2025
Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material procedural defects (use of expired test strip at initial screening), unresolved inconsistencies in witness evidence and incomplete investigation undermined the reliability of the screening and chain of custody under s31A(1A); benefit of doubt given to accused and acquittal entered.
11 Nov 2025
Prosecution failed to prove the essential precondition that the accused was arrested (actual or constructive) prior to the urine test as required by s31A DDA; because this foundational fact was not established and reasonable inferences favoured the accused, the court found no prima facie case and discharged the accused at the close of the prosecution case.
8 Oct 2025
Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s15(1)(a) ADB because material and unexplained discrepancies as to the identity and labeling of the urine bottle (photographs vs physical exhibit), admissions of post‑collection marking by investigators and unresolved risk of contamination broke the chain of custody and created reasonable doubt as to whether the specimen analysed belonged to the accused; accordingly the accused was acquitted without being called to enter defence.
25 Sept 2024
Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because (a) although chain of custody showed the sample belonged to the accused, the expert report did not establish that the detected amphetamine/methamphetamine were classified as 'dangerous drugs' under Parts III & IV of the First Schedule and (b) the statutory presumption under Section 37(k) could not be invoked because Section 31A requirements were not met—the accused was not an 'arrested person' when the urine sample was taken; consequently discharge at end of prosecution was appropriate.
4 Mar 2024
Prosecution proved all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt: the chain of custody of the urine sample was established by witness identification and photographs despite absence of the physical bottle, the forensic analysis by a qualified government scientific officer confirmed Amphetamine and Methamphetamine and complied with section 31A, permitting application of the statutory presumption under section 37(k) that the accused had administered the drugs to himself; the accused's denials were bare, afterthoughts and uncorroborated, therefore insufficient to rebut the presumption; acco…
15 Feb 2024
The court found prosecution proved all elements of the offence under Section 15(1)(a) DDA beyond reasonable doubt: lawful collection under Section 31A, credible laboratory confirmation of amphetamine and methamphetamine, and an unbroken chain of custody; the serial number discrepancy was a human typographical error explained by the analyst and did not break the chain; ID10/ID11 were excluded as afterthoughts; single bottle collection was legally sufficient; defendant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 37(k).