CHIN KEK SHEN vs PP - 2013 MarsdenLR 1387

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 1387

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CHIN KEK SHEN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent

Table of Content
1. defining the facts of trafficking charge. (Para 2 , 3)
2. summary of prosecution and defense arguments. (Para 4 , 5 , 7)
3. conflicting accounts from prosecution and defense. (Para 6)
4. court's reasoning on recalling witness. (Para 8 , 9)
5. adverse inference and its application. (Para 10 , 11)
6. prohibition against adverse inference from non-calling witnesses. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. implications of improper evidence evaluation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
8. impartiality and relevance of prior plea. (Para 19 , 20)

[1] The appellant/accused's appeal came up for hearing on 28 February 2013 and upon hearing we allowed the appeal on the same day. My learned brothers Mohamed Apandi Ali JCA and Linton Albert JCA have read the draft judgment and had approved the same. This is our judgment.

Brief Facts

[2] The appellant was charged for trafficking 646.1 grams 3, 4 - Methylenedioxymethamphetamine under s 39B(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA 1952). At the end of the prosecution case the court ruled it was a case of possession only and in consequence reduced the charge to be punishable under s 39A(2) of 1952. The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years impriso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 1387

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYACHIN KEK SHEN – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent

Cases Referred (7)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CHIN KEK SHEN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent