ROMI ALI vs PP - 2017 MarsdenLR 1396

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 1396

COURT OF APPEAL TAWAU
ROMI ALI – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Ram Singh ,Respondent Advocate: Hamdan Hamzah

Table of Content
1. court examined the definitions of trafficking and possession. (Para 17 , 19)
2. discussion on trafficking requirements. (Para 18 , 22 , 28 , 30)
3. clarification on the requirements needed to prove trafficking. (Para 20 , 21)
4. defendant's conduct and the necessity of overt acts for trafficking established. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
5. the absence of direct evidence against the appellant for trafficking was highlighted. (Para 26 , 27)
6. evaluation of evidence standard. (Para 29 , 31 , 32)

[17] Para 2 had set out the impugned decision of the learned HCJ who had made the following crucial finding of facts which appears in para 61 of her Grounds of Judgment. As was reproduced in para 2 of the Petition of Appeal, the impugned para 61 reads as follows:

"61. The accused has himself in his defence mentioned that the subject drug was meant to be handed over to another person who will be at the Tanjung Batu River banks to receive. (See p 81, Rekod Rayuan Jenayah)."

[18] We will now deal with the law on trafficking in drugs in the context of the DDA 1952. Section 2 of the 1952 states as follows:

""trafficking" includes the doing of any of the following acts, that is to say, manufact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 1396

COURT OF APPEAL TAWAUROMI ALI – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

COURT OF APPEAL TAWAU
ROMI ALI – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent