2009 MarsdenLR 895
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
WONG VUI CHIN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: S-05-95-2005]
Conviction for drug trafficking upheld based on established possession, despite misdirection on presumptions, as total conduct of the accused indicated knowledge of the drugs.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 37(d) and 37(da) - Trafficking in drugs - Accused charged with possession of methamphetamine, weighing 147.94 grammes, at ferry terminal - Presumption of trafficking invoked due to quantity exceeding 50 grammes - Court found direct evidence of the accused’s possession - Appellant claimed no knowledge of drugs but conduct indicated otherwise - Misdirection on presumptions acknowledged but did not affect overall verdict as evidence supported conviction. (Paras 5, 7, 15, 23-24)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 60(1) - Powers of appellate court - Evidence clear and cogent; miscarriage of justice not found despite misdirection on presumptions. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Legal Principles - Knowledge inferred from conduct; presumption of possession cannot be rebutted by ignorance if possession is established clearly. (Paras 16-22)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on factual conduct. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendant's testimony provides context for charges. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments against presumption of trafficking. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. prosecution supports the findings of the trial judge. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. misdirection must show failure of justice. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. conviction upheld despite misdirection. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. knowledge inferred from circumstances. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. inference based on conduct and knowledge. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 9. possession leads to trafficking presumption. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 10. affirmation of conviction and reasoning. (Para 23 , 24) |
[1] This is an appeal by the accused against conviction and sentence for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug (147.94 grammes of methamphetamine) at the Labuan Ferry Terminal, at about 5.55pm on 16 June 2000.
[2] The prosecution evidence could be summarised as follows. On the day in question, five plainclothes police officers led by Chief Inspector Nik Mohd Zuhry bin Mohd Yusoff (PW3) were at the Labuan Ferry Terminal to conduct a routine search of passengers arriving from Kota Kinabalu. At about 5.55 pm, a ferry (Labuan Express 2) from Kota Kinabalu berthed at the terminal. The 1st passenger to alight was the appellant, who walked hurriedly towards the ferry terminal with a newsprint package and a yellow plastic bag in his right hand. When PW3 set his eyes on the appellant, the appellant stopped and turned back (see p 68 of the Appeal Record). The face of the appellant turned pale when he (appellant) saw PW3 and Sergeant Major Alias Abas (see 69AR). Sergeant Major Alias Abas went after and apprehended the appellant, who was in a state of panic when he was apprehended (see 119AR). At the Customs Inspection Area of the said terminal, the appellant was asked to place the newsprint package and yellow plastic bag on the examination counter. PW3 enquired as to the nature of the contents in the yellow plastic bag. The appellant replied that it was pork - "dalam ada daging babi" (see 69AR). PW3 instructed Corporal Jonathan anak Amat (PW4) to open the yellow plastic bag. PW4 opened the yellow plastic bag and took out the following contents, namely, (i) a plastic package containing dried pork, (ii) a plastic package containing dried cuttlefish, (iii) a black plastic bag containing a paper box embossed "PERSKINDOL", and, (iv) a Labuan Express 2 ferry ticket with the number 04311 and the date 16 June 2000 in the name of the appellant. Before he opened it, PW4 asked the appellant as to the owner of that box. PW4 opened the paper box and uncovered four plastic packets of a white crystalline substance which was subsequently found to contain 147.94 grammes of methamphetamine. After those contents of the paper box had been uncovered, the appellant said "ini barang bukan saya punya, kawan kirim dari KK." (see 114AR & 115AR). As the bags were being examined, the appellant was in a state of anxiety (see 119AR). PW3 testified that when the crystalline substance was uncovered, the appellant slumped down, fell into a squatting position, and turned pale white (see 72AR). PW4 and PW5 further related that the appellant looked scared and was in a state of panic when he was handcuffed by PW5. In the newsprint package were three glass rods that could be used for the intake of methamphetamine (see p 76 of the AR).
[3] At the close of the prosecution case, the learned trial judge called for the defence. The appellant testified as follows. He was at Kota Kinabalu to give some money to his sister for the erection/upkeep of his grandmother's tomb. After he had given that money to his sister, he proceeded to buy some dried pork and dried cuttlefish. After he had made those purchases, he met a friend, Ah Hwa, at the rear entrance of Wisma Merdeka. Ah Hwa asked where he was going. He replied he was going to Labuan. Ah Hwa asked him to take something to Labuan. He asked what was that something. He said that he would no