Substantial evidence supported the conviction for drug trafficking, confirming legal presumptions without any reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's knowledge of the drugs in possession.

JUDGMENT

Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ:

Background

[1] This is the majority judgment of this court. The appellant was convicted for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to death by the High court, which was subsequently affirmed by the court of Appeal on the following charge:

"Bahawa kamu pada 12 September 2013, lebih kurang jam 11.10 malam di Unit Khas Pemeriksaan Penumpang Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Senai, di dalam Daerah Kulaijaya, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu, Methamphetamine seberat 1920.2 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."

[2] The appellant appealed to the Federal court, which is the appeal before us against the conviction and the death sentence imposed (the conviction issue). At the same time the appellant also raised the issue of the constitutionality of the imposition of the death sentence (the constitutionality issue).

[3] This judgment deals with the conviction issue only. The constitutionality issue is being dealt with in a separate judgment by my learned brother and sister Judges, Azahar Mohamed CJM and Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ.

The Prosecution's Case

[4] The appellant arrived in Malaysia when she landed at Senai International Airport, Johor on 12 September 2013. At 11.10pm on the same date, Mardiana binti Kamaruddin (PW5), a customs officer was on duty manning the scanner machines at the airport. PW5 scanned the appellant's bag (P13A), and found suspicious images on the right and left walls of the said bag.

[5] PW6, another customs officer who was also on duty then requested the appellant to open P13A. The appellant had difficulty in opening P13A using the combination lock. PW6 called her supervisor, PW7 for assistance.

[6] PW7 tried to open P13A using the combination numbers given by the appellant but was unsuccessful. With permission from the appellant, PW7 broke the combination lock using a screw driver and managed to open P13A. PW7 felt lumps on the sides of P13A. PW7 asked the appellant to remove the clothes from P13A. At that time, PW7 noticed that the appellant was sending text messages on her handphone. DNA profiling was subsequently done on the clothes and some of the items bore the DNA of the appellant.

[7] After P13A was finally emptied, it was rescanned by PW5. The scanner still showed suspicious images. PW5 informed Khairul Anuar bin Ishak (PW 8), from the Narcotics Unit of the Customs Department. PW8 inspected P13A and felt a bulge on both the left and right walls of P13A. He tore one side of P13A and found a packet wrapped in aluminium foil glued to a piece of plywood. He found the same thing when he tore the other side of P13A. PW8 made small opening on the two aluminium foils and found that they contained whitish substance of crystalline powder. He ordered one of the custom officers to conduct preliminary tests on the crystalline powder and found the substance in the packets to be methamphetamine.

[8] The items were seized and handed over to the Investigating Officer, PW9 who later sent the aluminium foils and their contents to the chemist (PW1) for analysis. PW1 found that the substances in both of the foils contained a total of 1920.2 grams of methamphetamine, a dangerous drug listed under the First Schedule to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ( DDA ).

Findings At The End Of The Prosecution's Case

[9] The learned trial judge considered the following issues:

(i) whether the appellant was in possession of the impugned drugs;

(ii) whether the impugned drugs were listed as dangerous drugs within the First Schedule of the DDA ; and

(iii) whether the appellant was trafficking in dangerous drugs.

[10] The learned trial judge considered the evidence of PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8 and guided by the cases of Toh Ah Loh & Mak Thim v. Rex, 1948 MarsdenLR 180 ; Leow Nghee Lim v. Regina ; 1955 MarsdenLR 198 and PP v. Abdul Rahman Akif