Back
2013 MarsdenLR 867
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
OOI CHOO HOCK – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: P-05-338-2010]
Possession of dangerous drugs requires exclusivity; discrepancies in evidence undermine the prosecution's case, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39B(1)(a), 39B(2), 12(2), 39A(2) - Five charges of drug trafficking and possession - Appellant convicted and sentenced to death for trafficking; seven years imprisonment for possession - Appeal against conviction - Essentials of 'possession' established and necessity of exclusivity emphasized (Paras 25-36) - Evidence discrepancies in drug exhibits questioned (Paras 56-70) - Admission of Statutory Declaration contested, evidence rejected by High Court (Paras 44-47) - Substantial miscarriage of justice identified, appeal allowed. (Paras 74-81)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was found in possession of dangerous drugs during a police raid at an apartment. Five charges were filed against him, leading to a conviction and severe penalties.
Findings of Court:
The High Court Judge concluded there was a prima facie case against the appellant but many discrepancies in the evidence were highlighted, particularly concerning possession and identity of drug exhibits.
Issues: The core issues revolved around whether there was exclusive possession of the drugs by the appellant and the reliability of the evidence regarding the drugs seized.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that possession must be exclusive to sustain drug trafficking charges and discrepancies in evidence created reasonable doubt about the appellant's control over the drugs. The rejection of defense exhibits contributed to a significant miscarriage of justice.
Result: Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside.
| 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 follows:
[2] For Criminal Trial No: 45-46-2003
The First Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada 8 Oktober 2002, jam lebih kurang 5.00 petang, di alamat Blok 23-11-18, Taman Lone Pine, Air Hitam, dalam Daerah Timur Laut, di dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 576.4 gram dan dengan itu 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."
The Second Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada 8 Oktober 2002, jam lebih kurang 5.00 petang, di alamat Blok 23-11-18, Taman Lone Pine, Air Hitam, dalam Daerah Timur Laut, di dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang, telah didapati dalam milikan kamu dadah berbahaya iaitu Monoacetylmorphines seberat 7.6 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39A(2) Akta yang sama."
The Third Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada 8 Oktober 2002, jam lebih kurang 5.00 petang, di alamat Blok 23-11-18, Taman Lone Pine, Air Hitam, dalam Daerah Timur Laut, di dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang, telah didapati dalam milikan kamu dadah berbahaya iaitu Ketamine seberat 45.1 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 12(3) Akta yang sama."
[3] For Criminal Trial No: 45-47-2003
The First Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada 8 Oktober 2002, jam lebih kurang 5.00 petang, di alamat Blok 23-11-18, Taman Lone Pine, Air Hitam, dalam Daerah Timur Laut, di dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 128.4 gram dan dengan itu 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."
The Second Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada 8 Oktober 2002, jam lebih kurang 5.00 petang, di alamat Blok 23-11-18, Taman Lone Pine, Air Hitam, dalam Daerah Timur Laut, di dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Ketamine seberat 411.4 gram dan dengan itu 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."
[4] The High Court at Penang convicted the appellant on all the five (5) charges. In respect of the three (3) trafficking charges, the appellant was sentenced to death. With regard to the possession charges, the appellant was sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment and ten (10) strokes of the rattan (for possession punishable under s 39A(2) of the DDA), and three (3) years imprisonment for possession punishable under s 12(3) of the . The sentences for both the possession charges were to commence from 8 October 2002.
[5] Aggrieved, the appellant now appeals to this Court.
The Case For The Prosecution
[6] On 8 October 2002 at approximately 3.00
