The court affirmed that knowledge of drug possession can be inferred from suspicious behavior at arrest, supporting the mens rea element for trafficking.

Introduction

[1] The appellant was convicted for trafficking in 1989 grams of cannabis on 10 February 2006 and was sentenced to death under s 39B(2) of the Dangerous Drug Act 1952 (DDA). His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed; thus this appeal before us.

Facts

[2] The facts of this case are relatively straight forward.

[3] According to the evidence of the arresting officer, PW4, on information received, an ambush was laid by a team of police officers led by him in the vicinity of a convenience store known as "One Mart 24 Jam" at Jalan Padi Emas 4/1 Bandar Baru Uda, Johore Baru, Johore. At about 4.15pm he noticed a male Malay acting in a suspicious manner walking towards the said convenience store. He had a red bag slung over his right shoulder PW4 and another police officer approached this man and declared themselves as police officers. This man attempted to escape. After a brief struggle, and with the help of other police officers who were engaged in the ambush, he was apprehended. This man was the appellant. PW4 discovered in the red bag two packages of compact dried materials suspected of cannabis and a work pass belong to the appellant. The suspected cannabis were sent to the chemistry department where they were analyzed and found to be cannabis weighing 1,989 grams.

[4] Before us, Mr Gobind Singh Deo, counsel for the appellant, raised two principal arguments.

[5] The first concerns the absence of intention ie, mens rea in the appellant. According to Mr Gobind, the courts below have failed to give due consideration to the events and circumstances when they made a finding that the appellant had possession of the drugs and thus the necessary knowledge of it.

[6] He relied on the events disclosed by the appellant in his defence to support this contention. We shall relate what the appellant said.

[7] According to the appellant, he was working as a clerk in a sea forwarding and transport company. On the day in question, he received a call from his father, who was also a member of this company, that certain custom import documents were ready. He returned to the company's office on his motorcycle JHX 8533. He parked his motorcycle in front of the said convenience store and left his bag, his jacket, helmet and key necessary to start the bike on the rack of his motorcycle. It was not for just a moment but from 2.30pm to 4.00pm. He then came down from his office with some documents which he deposited on the rack of his bike. Just then, he met a friend known as Kassim. Kassim, a forwarding agent informed him that the boss of Pelabuhan Tanjung Pelepas was unable to meet him. Kassim then left. This engagement took only two minutes. During re-examination, the appellant explained that when he spoke to Kassim, Kassim was inside a car with the car window slightly wound down. His motorcycle was about five meters from Kassim's car After this conversation, the appellant was arrested.

[8] Before we proceed to analyse the arguments presented by the appellant that his evidence can negate him of his knowledge of the drugs found in the bag it is appropriate to set out what the trial judge said of this.

[9] The trial judge before defence was called, after maximum evaluation of the evidence presented by the prosecution, came to this finding:

(a) The appellant was walking towards the convenience store.

(b) He was carrying a red bag and inside this bag the impugned drugs were found.

(c) The appellant had possession and control over this bag and thus has knowledge of the contents therein.

(d) Since the appellant attempted to escape before