Back
2020 MarsdenLR 3146
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MELINDA STEVENSON – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: WA-22C-38-03-2017]
Failure to properly identify key exhibits in drug trafficking case resulted in an unsafe conviction, highlighting the necessity for strict adherence to procedural requirements.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Sections 39B(1)(a) and 39B(2) – Appeal against conviction for trafficking 2,241.6 grammes of Methamphetamine – The trial court's evaluation of evidence showed a failure in positive identification of key exhibits, resulting in a serious break in the chain of evidence and conclusion of unsafe conviction. (Paras 1, 2, 12, 16, 18-20, 26-30)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code – Requirement for evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused – Procedures surrounding exhibit identification must be strictly adhered to, and lapses can impair the integrity of the prosecution's case. (Paras 33-36)
Facts of the case: The appellant was accused of trafficking in drugs discovered at the Langkawi International Airport upon her arrival, where Methamphetamine was found concealed in her baggage. (Paras 4-11)
Findings of Court: The trial court found that the prosecution successfully established a prima facie case; however, the failure to positively identify drug exhibits undermined the prosecution's case. (Paras 12, 34-37)
Issues: Key issues included the adequacy of exhibit identification in court and whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 15, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a breakdown in the identification of key exhibits constituted a failure in proof, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's conviction was unsafe. (Paras 25, 26, 34)
Result: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, and appellant acquitted and discharged.
JUDGMENT
[1] This is the appellant's appeal against the decision of the High Court which convicted the appellant of the charge against her under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (' DDA ') for the offence of trafficking in 2,241.6 grammes of methamphetamine punishable under s 39B(2) . The charge reads as follows:
Bahawa kamu pada 12 Oktober 2014 lebih kurang 9:15 malam di Balai Ketibaan Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Langkawi (LTAL), di dalam daerah Langkawi, dalam Negeri Kedah Darul Aman telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 2,241.6 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama.
[2] At the High Court after a full trial the learned Judicial Commissioner on 13 March 2018 found the appellant guilty as charged under s 39B(1)(a) DDA . The appellant was convicted by the learned JC and sentenced to death.
[3] Before us the appellant appealed against conviction and sentence. We heard the appeal on 5 August 2019 and after perusing the records of appeal and considering both the written and oral submissions of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) and the appellant's learned counsel we allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. We now give our reasons.
The Case For The Prosecution
[4] The facts as narrated by the High Court are as follows. On 12 October 2014 at 8:20pm, Melinda Stevenson ('the appellant'), a South African national arrived at the Langkawi International Airport ('LIA') vide flight SILKAIR (MI0368) from Singapore; in transit from Johannesburg. After the appellant passed through immigration control, she proceeded to claim her trolley luggage bag ('P54') at the baggage carousel at the airport. PW3, Muhd Ridzuan Abdul Ghani a customs officer who was in charge of inspecting incoming passengers' baggage at the airport was stationed at a scanner machine at the material time. He noticed a female passenger, the appellant behaving suspiciously holding P54 wrapped with a blue luggage-wrapper plastic. PW3 requested the appellant to place P54 into the scanner machine for scanning purposes. She placed P54 into the scanner machine. Zaidi Abdul Razak ('Zaidi'), the officer manning the scanner scanned the appellant's luggage. When P54 passed through the scanner machine, Zaidi saw through the screen monitor suspicious images and asked PW3 to conduct further investigation of P54. PW3 in the meantime asked the appellant for her passport for purposes of verification of identification and confirmation that P54 belongs to her. The particulars in the passport matched the information from the baggage tag which was tied around the handle of P54. After the verification, PW3 was satisfied that the appellant was the holder of the passport and the owner of P54.
[5] The appellant was then asked to open P54 which was fully wrapped with a blue plastic wrapper. The appellant was given a pair of scissors and asked to cut the blue plastic wrapper covering P54 which was not locked. PW3 asked the appellant to open P54 and in it were clothes, toiletries and a book. The image on the scanning machine had shown images of suspicious looking items packed in P54. PW3 searched for the items in P54 but could not find anything. He then discovered a zipped compartment at the base of P54. He unzipped the compartment and discovered two concealed gift wrapped parcels, one with butterflies print and the other one with flower print.
[6] When questioned by PW3 what was in the two parcels, the appellant told him that the parcels contained souvenirs that she plans to give to her friends in Langkawi. PW3 then placed the package wrapped with butterflies print on the scanning machine and the screen monitor showed two more packages in the gift wrapped parcel. He then asked the appellant what was inside the two parcels and she replied that the parcel contained chocolates. SP3 then proceeded to open
