Back
2011 MarsdenLR 3628
HIGH COURT MALAYA PETALING JAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
TONG KAM YEW & ANOR – Respondent
[Criminal Trial Nos: 45-27 & 28-2008]
The court established that possession of drugs coupled with circumstantial evidence validates a finding of intent to traffic, placing the burden of proof on the defendants to counter the presumption of guilt.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39B(1)(a) and 39B(2) - Common intention in drug trafficking - Two accused charged with trafficking in 143.8 grammes of methamphetamine and 2000 pills of nimetazepam, subject to mandatory death penalty - The prosecution established a prima facie case through credible evidence demonstrating possession and intent to traffic drugs. (Paras 1-3, 4-42)
(B) Defence and burden of proof - The court found the defendants' claims of innocence implausible and contradictory, rejecting their explanations and holding them responsible for the contents of the bag irrespective of their argument of ignorance. (Paras 45-128)
Facts of the case:
The charges stemmed from the arrest of the accused at a restaurant, where one handed over a bag containing drugs to the other. Relevant evidence was presented from witnesses and police operations leading to their arrest.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence proving the accused's involvement in drug trafficking, leading to their conviction and imposition of the death sentence.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the accused knew of the drugs and if the prosecution proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that possession coupled with the surrounding circumstances established intent to traffic, with no reasonable doubt left by the defence.
Result: Convicted and sentenced to death.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charges of drug trafficking under the dda. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution establishes a prima facie case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. inference of mens rea from possession. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 5. definition of trafficking under the dda. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 6. accused persons' defence and testimonies. (Para 45) |
| 7. court's final judgment on drug trafficking charges (Para 46) |
[1] The 2 accused persons were jointly charged with common intention with 2 ounts of drug trafficking under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (the "DDA") and punishable under s 39B(2) of the involving 2 different types and weights of dangerous drugs, as listed in the First Schedule of the . The 2 types of dangerous drugs are 143.8 grammes of methamphetamine and 2000 pills containing 12.0 grammes of nimetazepam.
[2] The 2 offences are punishable with the mandatory death sentence under s 39B(2) of the DDA.
The Charges
[3] The 2 counts of drug trafficking in The 2 charge sheets, P4 and P5, state as follows in the Malay language:
Case No. 45-27-2008
"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 3hb Februari 2008, jam lebih kurang 6.30 petang di kawasan Restoran Hwa Keng, Jalan kenari 6, Bandar Puchong Yaya, Puchong, di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan dalam melaksanakan niat bersama, kamu telah memperedarkan dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 143.8 gram dan dengan itu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama yang dibaca dengan Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan".
Case No. 45-28-2008
"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 3hb Februari 2008, jam lebih kurang 6.30 petang di kawasan Restoran Hwa Keng, Jalan kenari 6, Bandar Puchong Yaya, Puchong, di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan dalam melaksanakan niat bersama, kamu telah memperedarkan 2000 biji pil yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Nimetazepam seberat 12.0 gram dan dengan itu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama yang dibaca dengan Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan".
Decision Of The Court At The Close Of The Prosecution Case
[4] The prosecution called 7 witnesses in order to establish a prima facie case against The 2 accused persons. At the close of the prosecution case the Court was satisfied that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case against The 2 accused persons based on the following reasons.
[5] There was credible evidence that the 1st accused, Tong Kam Yew ("TKY") had driven his black coloured Proton Wira car bearing registration number WHX 1021 (the "Wira car") to the front of the Hwa Keng restaurant (the "restaurant") at Jalan Kenari 6, Bandar Puchong Jaya, Puchong, in the state of Selangor. After parking his car in one of the parking bays on the opposite side of the road in front of the restaurant, he alighted from the car leaving behind another person who was seated in the front passenger seat. This person was later identified as Taj Malaysia Singh a/l Jagtar Singh ("TMS").
[6] TKY then walked across the road to a table which was placed with other tables along the 5-foot way of the restaurant. He then sat down at the table.
[7] About 15 minutes later, the 2nd accused, Wang Wee Cheng ("WWC") drove his white coloured Kancil car bearing registration number WMT 8599 (the "Kancil car") to the front of the restaurant and he parked his car in the car parking bay beside the Wira car.
[8] Upon seeing this TKY then walked to the Kancil car and took from the 2nd accused a red coloured paper bag (the "bag"). At this juncture, the complainant, ASP Norosid Bin Hj. Mamat (PW1) ordered his men who were waiting in ambush at the restaurant to arrest The
