Counsel in capital cases must submit written arguments and engage with defendants adequately; appellate courts uphold trial judgments unless a reasonable view of evidence is lacking.

[1] The appellant's/accused appeal, came up for hearing on 11 March 2013 and upon hearing we dismissed it on the same day. My learned brothers Mohamed Apandi Ali JCA and Linton Albert JCA have read the judgment and approved the same. This is our judgment.

[2] In the instant case the learned counsel for the appellant did not file any written submission. Such a conduct is very unusual in appeal cases and more so in capital punishment cases. In our view the criminal bar must not accept any brief in capital punishment cases if they have no time to prepare for the case and/or appropriate submission to assist the court in the administration of criminal justice. The court takes note of such conduct with concern and disappointment. Bar Council ought to educate its members for the need to file written submission at the earliest opportunity, and in appropriate cases where there is a breach must initiate disciplinary action without fear or favour. The conduct complained of may amount to breach of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette Rules 1978) and in appropriate case advocates may be liable for disciplinary action.

[3] It must be stated here that at times we note that assigned counsel have not even met the appellant/accused to take appropriate instructions. And we have seen counsel confessing at that date of hearing that it is the first time they are meeting the appellant and stating that they are ready to proceed. It is quite shocking and is not a healthy trend in the administration of criminal justice, that too in Capital Punishment cases.

[4] Notwithstanding the absence of the written submission by the learned counsel we have taken upon ourselves to scrutinize the evidence in meticulous detail and the findings of the learned judge and we find no reason to warrant appellate intervention.

[5] The appellant has filed a lengthy memorandum of appeal relating to finding of facts. The learned deputy public prosecutor has filed a detailed submission in meticulous detail rebutting all the issues raised in the petition of appeal with appropriate reference to the evidence and finding of the learned judge. It is trite that the finding of facts of the trial judge will not be ordinarily disturbed as long as the court strictly follows Radhi's directions and the maximum evaluation and beyond reasonable doubt at the end of the defence case. [see PP v. Mohd Aszzid Abdullah , 2008 MarsdenLR 4200 and Tong Kam Yew & Anor v. PP; 2025 MarsdenLR 6216 ; 2013 MarsdenLR 1100 ; [2013] 3 AMR 248 ].

Brief Facts

[6] The appellant was charged for trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 39B(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 . The charge reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 19 Ogos 2010, jam lebih kurang 9.30 malam di hadapan gerai Rumah Makan Intan Penjaja Taman Cengkok Manis, Lunas di dalam daerah Kulim, di dalam Negeri Kedah Darul Aman, telah didapati memperedar dadah berbahaya iaitu kanabis seberat 2532 gram. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

[7] In the instant case the police had obtained information from a source. One police officer, SP2 was appointed as agent provocateur by the investigating officer SP7. After contacting the accused by phone, SP2 met the accused at an agreed restaurant. SP7 had observed the accused arriving in the motorcycle and was going to the restaurant where the accused met SP2 to sell the drugs. Subsequently, the accused took SP2 to the motorcycle where the drugs were kept and showed him the drugs. SP2 after seeing the drugs gave the signal to SP7 and team to make the arrest. The accused was arrested red handed and the drugs re