Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
OOI CHOO HOCK – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges against the appellant (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. circumstances of the police raid and seizure (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. defendant's testimony and denial of knowledge (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. legal standards related to possession (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. assessment of exclusive possession (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 6. issues regarding admissibility of evidence (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 7. impact of evidence rejection on defense (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 8. discrepancies in evidence presented by prosecution (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 9. further discrepancies affecting prosecution's credibility (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 10. consequences of discrepancies and defense right (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
[1] The appellant was charged in the High Court at Penang with five (5) charges under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA"). Three (3) of the charges were for trafficking in the dangerous drugs, while the other two (2) charges were for possession of the dangerous drugs. In its original text, the charges were drafted as foll
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
