Back
Next 
2019 MarsdenLR 1176
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
ALMA NUDO ATENZA – Appellant
Versus
PP & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: 05-94-05-2017(B) & 05-193-08-2017(W)]
Petitioner Advocates:Gopal Sri Ram,Srimurugan Alagan,Surjan Singh,R Kengadharan,Jamil Mohamed Shafie,Emily Wong,Magita Hari Mogan,Yasmeen Soh,How Li Nee,Nursyazwani Ilyana Iskandar Dzulkarnain,Hussein Akhtar,Sathiswaranji Samy ,Respondent Advocate: Nik Suhaimi Nik Sulaiman,Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar,Ku Hayati Ku Haron,Hamdan Hamzah
Section 37A of the DDA is unconstitutional for violating the presumption of innocence, shifting the burden onto the accused and failing the proportionality test.
Headnote:Section 37A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA) permits double presumptions of possession and trafficking contravening the presumption of innocence under art 5(1) of the Federal Constitution (FC). The court found the amendments unconstitutional as they may lead to convictions despite reasonable doubts (para 151). The objective of curbing drug trafficking was deemed insufficient to justify the infringement on fundamental rights, thus striking down the provision. The appellants' convictions under s 39B were quashed and substituted for possession under s 12(1).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the central issue pertains to constitutional validity under the federal constitution. (Para 1) |
[1] The common and central issue in the present appeals is on the constitutional validity of s 37A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (" DDA "), with reference to arts 5, 8, and 121 of the Federal Constitution ("FC").
