SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 MarsdenLR 2100

HIGH COURT MALAYA ALOR SETAR
PP – Appellant
Versus
BENJAMIN WILLIAM HAWKES (WN REPUBLIK AFRIKA SELATAN) – Respondent
[Criminal Trial No: 45A-15-11/2014]



Possession combined with actions indicating knowledge of drugs leads to a presumption of trafficking under s 39B DDA 1952.

Headnote:In this judgment, the court analyzed the trafficking charge under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 due to possession of methamphetamine. The prosecution presented credible witness testimonies linking the accused to the incriminating drugs. At the close of the prosecution's case, it found a prima facie case against the accused and called him to enter his defense. The Court examined the chain of evidence and ruled there was no reasonable doubt raised by the defense, confirming the mandatory death sentence for trafficking.

Table of Content
1. accused charged with trafficking methamphetamine as a serious drug offence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution provided credible evidence and established a prima facie case. (Para 3 , 26 , 94)
3. actions indicating knowledge of drugs support trafficking presumption. (Para 70 , 119)
4. final verdicts were based on evidence evaluated beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 130 , 131)
Choo Kah Sing JC:

Introduction

[1] Benjamin William Hawkes, the accused, a South African national, was charged with trafficking 1598.3 gram of methamphetamine, an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ( DDA ), which, if convicted, is punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act which carries a mandatory death sentence.

[2] The charge read as follows:

Bahawa kamu pada 21 Julai 2013, jam lebih kurang 9.00 malam, di Balai Ketibaan, Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Langkawi, dalam Negeri Kedah Darul Aman telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 1,598.3 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama.

The Prosecution's Case

[3] The prosecution called 9 witnesses. The main evidence of the prosecution's case came from the testimonies of Mohamad Syahrul (SP4), Mohd Sani (SP5), Mustafaal Bakeri (SP7), the investigating officer Sahirman Mohammad (SP9) and the chemist Puan Faesmaziana Binti Napiah (SP3). The gist of the prosecution narrative is as below.

[4] On 21 July 2013, around 8.00pm, the accused arrived at the Langkawi International Airport via flight SILKAIR MI368 from Singapore, a transit from Johannesburg. He cleared the immigration checkpoint and proceeded to claim his bag (P8) at the baggage carousel at the airport.

[5] SP4, a custom officer, was in charge of inspecting incoming passengers' baggage at the Langkawi International Airport, Kedah. He was stationed at an x-ray baggage scanner machine at that material time. He saw the accused holding a trolley bag (P8) walking towards him. The accused was among the last few passengers who came out, SP4 said. He also said at that material time P8 was wrapped with a luggage-wrapper plastic when he requested the accused to place his bag (P8) into the scanner for scanning purposes. The plastic wrapper was blue in colour, he further said.

[6] A bright object in orange colour was seen inside P8 from the x-ray monitor screen. The object was unusually bright compared to other items inside P8. This bright object aroused the suspicion of SP4.

[7] SP4 then instructed the accused to place P8 at the inspection counter. SP4 gave the accused a pair of scissors to remove the plastic wrapper, and the accused used the scissors to cut and remove the plastic wrapper. At the same time, SP4 requested the accused's passport (P23) and boarding pass (P29) for identification purposes. SP4 confirmed the accused was the holder of the passport and the owner of P8. The particulars printed on the boarding pass matched the information from the baggage tag which was wrapped around the handle of P8 (see P54(1-37), particularly pictures 2 and 3).

[8] SP4 asked the accused, "This is your baggage?", and the accused replied "Yes". He also asked the accused to open P8. SP4 recalled that P8 had a combination key-lock, and the accused himself opened it.

[9] SP4 saw some clothes inside P8. Underneath the clothes, he found a black document bag (P22) placed in the middle of P8.

[10] SP4 asked the accused to open P22. When P22 was opened, it was empty. SP4 held up P22 and it felt heavy despite being empty. He asked the accused, "What item you bring?" The accused replied, "Don't know".

[11] SP4 directed the accused to bring P22 to the scanner for scanning. The accused brought P22 to the scanner, and while P22 was in the process of being scanned, the accused walked away and headed to the direction of exit and left the arrival hall without saying anything.

[12] SP4 immediately alerted SP5, an airport security personne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top