Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Willful blindness

Legal area

Court

27 May 2025

LIM WEI JIE [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(SH)-627-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-627-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the appellant's statement to police satisfied s27 EA 1950 prerequisites (information from an accused in custody causing discovery), the discovered methamphetamine and the appellant's conduct and surrounding suspicious circumstances established both possession and knowledge (willful blindness invoked), the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking under the DDA, and the hearsay/tip-off was not used to prove truth but only as introductory evidence; therefore the conviction and sentence were safe and the appeal was dismissed.
13 May 2025

[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] 1. ) AB MALEK BIN HAMID 2. ) MR HARMAN AWAEKUECHEH (Thailand)

Citation

BA-45A-63-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-63-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found prosecution proved custody and control, established chain of custody and forensic identity of drugs, and that the defendants' conduct and failures to inspect the sealed sacks amounted to willful blindness; the defences (innocent carrier and uninvestigated third party Tolib) did not raise reasonable doubt. Therefore both defendants were convicted under s.39B(1)(a) ADB and sentenced as stated.
6 Dec 2024

[Pegawai Pendakwa] Bretley Letu Anak Micheal Gambit

Citation

BA-45A-33-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-33-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court convicted because chemical identity and uninterrupted chain of custody were established; documentary evidence (boarding pass and baggage tag) and CCTV showed accused carried and checked the bag; the large quantity and concealment supported an inference of trafficking and accused failed to raise reasonable doubt or rebut statutory presumptions; wilful blindness equated to knowledge.
31 Jan 2024

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) RUBAN A/L MOHAN 2. ) LAVANEIA A/P GUNASEKARAN

Citation

WA-45-19-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45-19-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted the defence account and the sworn testimony of SD3 (Dinesh) as credible and probative, found that defence raised a reasonable doubt sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking and that investigative deficiencies and uncalled prosecution witnesses further undermined the prosecution case; accordingly the accuseds must be acquitted and discharged.
31 Jan 2024

WA-45A-106-12/2021 & WA-45-19--03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-45A-106-12/2021 & WA-45-19--03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-106-12/2021 & WA-45-19--03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted the defence evidence, in particular the sworn admission and corroborative testimony of the third party (Dinesh), and found that the defence raised a reasonable doubt and rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking; combined with deficiencies in the prosecution investigation and failure to call key witnesses, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.
12 Oct 2023

[ ] Saik Siew Chye

Citation

WA-45A-33-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-33-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite custody, control and knowledge of the drugs; the accused gave a plausible explanation corroborated by evidence (rental by Alex, inspection of contents), investigative failures (failure to trace or call Alex and other material witnesses) and adverse inferences against the prosecution undermined its case; doctrine of wilful blindness did not apply; therefore the presumption of trafficking was rebutted and the accused must be acquitted.
15 Sept 2023

[ ] Liau Vui Pin

Citation

BA-45A-28-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-28-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Physical concealment of five packages on the accused's person, corroborated by CCTV and unchallenged chemical analysis proving 738.77g of methamphetamine, together with the method of concealment and the accused's conduct (including willful blindness and failure to rebut the statutory presumption), established possession, knowledge and trafficking beyond reasonable doubt; therefore conviction under s39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 was proper and the court imposed life imprisonment and 12 strokes under s39B(2).
3 Mar 2022

Yi Sha [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

B-05(M)-393-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-393-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the totality of the evidence the Court held the prosecution had established trafficking: the presumption under s.37(d) was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities, the appellant’s innocent carrier defence was disbelieved and wilful blindness applied; the large quantity supported inference of trafficking; conviction and death sentence affirmed.
8 Feb 2022

Sathya A/l Vello [ ]

Citation

05(M)-10-01/2020(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

M
Case number

05(M)-10-01/2020(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Proof of custody and control of luggage containing concealed methamphetamine invoked the legal presumption under s37(d) DDA; appellant failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities and also failed to cast reasonable doubt that the large quantities were intended for trafficking; trial judge correctly applied the law and procedure and any omission to state explicitly which presumption applied or to refer to self‑serving out‑of‑court statements/DW2 did not prejudice appellant or vitiate the verdict; appeal therefore dismissed and conviction and sentence affirmed.
8 Sept 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Mehrdad Rahmati Yadollah (IRN) Amin Rereydounisl Mirza (IRN) Mehrdad Rahmati Yadollah (IRN) Amin Fereydounisl Mirza (IRN)

Citation

B-05(H)-378-07/2018 dan B-05(SH)-567-12/2019 (Majority Judgment of The Court) (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

H
Case number

B-05(H)-378-07/2018 dan B-05(SH)-567-12/2019 (Majority Judgment of The Court) (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed convictions because prosecution proved custody and control of bags containing concealed large quantities of methamphetamine (supported by DNA and name tag), properly invoking the presumption under s37(d) and establishing trafficking under s2; however the trial judge erred in imposing life imprisonment because the mandatory statutory preconditions in s39B(2A), specifically paragraph (d) (assistance to enforcement, evidenced by certification), were not satisfied, so the appellate court substituted the sentence with death for both appellants.