The Dangerous Drugs Act imposes mandatory death sentences for trafficking, with evidence requirements of possession, knowledge, and trafficking established beyond reasonable doubt.

Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera JCA:

Introduction

[1] The appellant was charged with two offences under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the Act") punishable under s 39B(2) of the Act.

[2] The High Court convicted the appellant on both counts and sentenced him to mandatory death.

[3] The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court appealed against both conviction and sentence.

[4] We heard and dismissed the appeal for the following reasons.

The Charge

[5] The appellant was charged with two separate offences under s 39B(1)(a) of the Act. The charges read as follows:

First Amended Charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 19 Februari 2017 jam lebih kurang 11.00 malam, di alamat No 23, Lorong 5, Jalan 9/16, Taman Air Biru, dalam daerah Johor Bahru, dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Cannabis berat bersih 1003 gram. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

Second Amended Charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 19 Februari 2017 jam lebih kurang 11.00 malam, di alamat No 23, Lorong 5, Jalan 9/16, Taman Air Biru, dalam daerah Johor Bahru, dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Cannabis berat bersih 71398 gram. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

At the High Court

The Prosecution Case

[6] The prosecution's case is that on 19 February 2017, acting on information received, DSP Hairy bin Ramlan (SP8) together with a team of police officers from the Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik, IPD Seri Alam, Johor Bahru, conducted surveillance on a double storey terrace house at No 23, Lorong 5, Jalan 9/16, Taman Air Biru, Johor Bahru.

[7] After about 30 minutes of surveillance from a distance of about 10 meters, SP8 saw a male Malay, later identified as the appellant, exiting the front door of the house and walking towards the gate. SP8 noticed that the appellant was carrying a white plastic bag in his left hand. SP8 approached the appellant, identified himself as a Police Officer and displayed his police authority card.

[8] SP8 caught hold of the appellant's left hand and took the white plastic bag with the words "KIO-DA" (P38) written on it. SP8 checked the contents of the plastic bag and found one slab of compressed dried plant material suspected to be cannabis, wrapped with transparent plastic. The appellant was seen to be shocked, ie "terkejut" in the words of SP8. A physical examination of the appellant did not reveal anything incriminating.

[9] SP8 and his raiding team then brought the appellant inside the house. They saw a Malay lady, who was the appellant's wife (SP5) together with two of their daughters in the living room. A physical examination of SP5 and the two daughters did not reveal anything incriminating.

[10] The police team then conducted a search of the house, and in an unlocked bedroom on the upper floor they found two large black plastic packages on the floor near the wall. SP8 examined the contents of the first plastic package (P63) and found one gunny sack with the words "40kg" on it containing 31 compressed slabs of dried plant material wrapped with transparent plastic suspected to be cannabis.

[11] Similarly, in the second plastic package (P64), SP8 found one gunny sack with the words "40kg" on it containing 40 slabs of compressed dried plant material suspected to be cannabis wrapped with transparent plastic.

[12] Inside that room the police team also found an electronic weighing scale, a metal ruler, a knife, a roll of transparent plastic wrapping, the appellant's passport, a copy of an ETIKA Takaful insurance document in the name of the appellant, a key, an electricity bill and several other personal items of the appellant, including a shirt and pair of jeans.

[13] The appellant was arrested and all the incriminating items were