Back
2014 MarsdenLR 2611
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
NOLOSE ALBERT RALESHOME – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 05-327-12-2013(W)]
The chemist's oral testimony is paramount in drug trafficking cases to establish the nature and weight of the substances involved, particularly under mandatory death penalty laws.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39B(1)(a) and 39B(2) - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - A charge involving 707.5 grams of methamphetamine was initially dismissed by the Court of Appeal citing failure to prove an essential element of the charge - The High Court, upon appeal, reinstated the conviction based on the sufficiency of evidence from the chemist regarding the drug's nature and weight - The Court emphasized the importance of the chemist's oral testimony alongside the chemist report, declaring it to be the best evidence - The conviction was upheld on grounds of overwhelming evidence presented against the respondent. (Paras 1-29)
(B) Appeal proceedings - The Court articulated the principle that the appellate court evaluates the evidence based on the trial judge’s findings and does not merely rely on the content of reports, especially when oral testimony conflicts with written reports prepared by experts. (Paras 12-17)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was apprehended during a police operation, where officers discovered methamphetamine in a black bag after the respondent fled from a vehicle. The prosecution established a prima facie case, although the Court of Appeal previously found the conviction unsafe due to credibility issues in the chemist's report.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the chemist's oral testimony contradicted her report, but the appellate court ultimately relied on the testimony affirming the analysis procedures were correctly conducted, reinstating the conviction.
Issues: The legitimacy of the drug's identification, specifically whether the substance was indeed methamphetamine and weighed correctly, was pivotal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the oral testimony of the chemist confirmed the proper procedures were followed for drug analysis, overruling the Court of Appeal's concerns regarding the chemist's report.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the death sentence was reinstated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondent's charge and trial outcomes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. charge for drug trafficking and appeal process (Para 3) |
| 3. evidence of police operation and drug discovery. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. respondent's defense explained. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court of appeal's reasoning on evidence credibility. (Para 12) |
[1] The respondent was charged in the High Court Kuala Lumpur for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, to wit 707.5 grams of methamphetamine, an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act ( DDA ).
[2] On 11 January 2013, the High Court found the respondent guilty of the said charge and sentenced him to death. On 9 December 2013, the Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal. The respondent was acquitted and discharged.
[3] We heard the appeal by the public prosecutor against the decision of the Court of Appeal on 10 July 2014. After hearing the parties, we allowed the appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside, and we reinstated the decision of the High Court. We now give our reasons.
The Facts
[4] The relevant facts and the issues raised in this appeal are these. On 30 December 2010 at about 11.00am a team of Police Officers led by Inspector Shamsul bin Musa (PW7) acting on information received conducted an operation in relation to drugs related offences at Taman Connaught Cheras (target area). The target was a Proton Gen 2 car bearing registration No WMX 9669 (Gen 2 car).
[5] The police team arrived at the target area at about 11.30am. Not long after that PW7 found the Gen 2 car parked in front of the Alliance Bank. There was no one inside the Gen 2 car. PW7 then directed his team to carry out surveillance at the vicinity of the Gen 2 car. PW7 positioned his car fifteen meters behind the Gen 2 car.
[6] At about 12.15 noon, PW7 was alerted by one of his men that a male of African descent (respondent) was seen carrying a black bag and heading towards the Gen 2 car. PW7 then saw the respondent getting into the Gen 2 car and was carrying a black bag. When the Gen 2 car started to move, PW7 and his team trailed the Gen 2 car until Taman Len Seng. As the Gen 2 car was entering into the vicinity of Taman Len Seng Food Court, PW7 intercepted the Gen 2 car. The respondent stopped, got off from the target car and fled. PW7 and his team followed in pursuit and soon after the respondent was apprehended.
[7] PW7 conducted a body search on the respondent and recovered the car key from the respondent's front trousers pocket. PW7 brought the respondent to the Gen 2 car. Using the car key recovered from the respondent, PW7 opened the Gen 2 car door and retrieved a black bag (P15) which contained a black package. Subsequently when the black package was opened, PW7 found in it substances suspected to be dangerous drugs.
[8] The package containing the substances suspected to be dangerous drugs was then sent to the Chemistry Department for chemical examination and analysis. The substances in the package were later confirmed by the Chemist, Muzaiyanah binti Mohd Kaprawi (PW4) to contain 707.5 grams methamphetamine, a dangerous drug under the DDA .
At The High Court
[9] The High Court at the end of the prosecution's case found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving a prima facie case against the respondent and ordered the respondent to enter for his defence. The respondent in his defence utterly denied the events that led to his arrest. Respondent's version was that on 30 December 2010 at about 10.00am he was in his rented car Gen 2 in front of Alliance Bank waiting for Asmawati binti Abu Bakar (Asmawati). Asmawati is the girlfriend of his Nigerian friend named Kenneth. Accordinq to the respondent, Kenneth had asked him to lend the Gen 2 car to Asmawati for the day and at the material time he was waiting for Asmawati to take the car.
[10] The respondent further testified that Asmawati arrived at about 10.20am to 10.30am carrying a backpack (P
