Possession in drug trafficking cases necessitates exclusive control and knowledge over the illicit substance, confirmed by circumstantial evidence.

Introduction

[1] The Appellant/Accused was charged as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 23 Mac 2019 jam lebih kurang 6.45 petang bertempat di No 1-11-15, Kuchai Avenue, Jalan Kuchai Maju 13, OffJalan Kuchai Lama. Di Dalam Daerah Brickfields, Dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu 612.8 gram methamphetamine. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 38B(2) akta yang sama."

At the conclusion of trial, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court.

[2] The Appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence which was dismissed by us. We now give our reasons.

Prosecution Case

[3] On 23 March 2019 at about 6.40pm, acting on information received, PW7 the raiding officer, led a police party to the premises as stated in the charge (the premises). Upon reaching the premises, PW7 found the grill was locked. After knocking the door a few times to no avail, the padlock (P26) was cut opened. The main door, which was unlocked, was opened. Upon entering the premises, PW7 saw the Appellant standing in front of the master bedroom. PW7 identified himself as a police officer and a body search was conducted on the Appellant with nothing incriminating found. PW7 asked the Appellant "adakah kamu apa-apa barang salah". The Appellant brought PW7 and the police party to the main room to a safe deposit box which was locked (P24) from the dressing cabinet. The Appellant opened the padlock (P25A) with a key (P25B) which was placed on top of the safe deposit box. The Appellant handed over to PW7, 14 transparent packets (P9(1-14)) suspected to contain drugs namely methamphetamine.

[4] Upon further inspection of the room, the following items were discovered and seized; namely, a pair of 'superior product garage men denimwear' brand blue jeans (P17A); one white/green/grey striped t-shirt (P18A); one red towel (P19A); one Darlie toothbrush (P20A); one access card (P27B), eight keys (P27C) and one fingerprint padlock (P26) which was from the main entrance.

[5] The Appellant was then arrested and handed over, together with the above seized items to PW8, the Investigating Officer (IO).

[6] On 28 March 2019, PW8 sent the suspected drugs to the Chemistry Department for analysis by the chemist, PW1, which were later confirmed to contain 612.8 grams of methamphetamine. This is as per the chemist report PI. The seized items P17A, P18A, P19A and P20A were sent on the same day to the forensic chemist, PW2 and the report is as per P13.

Finding At The Close Of The Prosecution Case

[7] The High Court Judge (HCJ) found that the 3 elements of the offence under s 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ( DDA ) were proved.

[8] The first element of the drugs being a dangerous drug as specified in the First Schedule to DDA was satisfied with methamphetamine being listed in Part III of the aforesaid Schedule. The identity and weight of the drugs is as stated in the chemist report.

[9] The HCJ found the second element of possession by the Appellant to have been established. Regard was had to the Appellant being the tenant as per the tenancy agreement (P22) which the landlord (PW4) confirmed to be signed by the Appellant; the Appellant being alone in the premises when the raid was conducted; DNA evidence of P17A, P18A and P19A which confirmed the Appellant to reside at the premises; and the fingerprint padlock demonstration which showed no other person had access. The Appellant was said to have exclusive access to the premises and thereby possession of the drugs. The Appellant also had knowledge as he led the police