SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 MarsdenLR 2004

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ROSSARIN NUEKAEW – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent


Table of Content
1. appellant charged under drug laws. (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution established possession and knowledge. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. defence strategy failed credibility standards. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's evaluation of evidence led to conviction. (Para 10 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. procedural matters did not undermine conviction. (Para 11 , 12)
Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal J:

Introduction

[1] The appellant is a Thai national. She was charged in the High Court at Alor Setar for trafficking in dangerous drugs. The charge was as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 9hb Disember 2011 jam lebih kurang 8.15 malam, di bahagian lorong Terminal Bas Shahab Perdana, di dalam daerah Kota Setar, dalam Negeri Kedah Darul Aman telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu cannabis sejumlah berat 16841 gram. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

[2] The appellant was found guilty after a trial and sentenced to death on 29 October 2014 by the High Court. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was filed on the same day. The appeal came up for hearing on the 8 December 2015 at the Court of Appeal. Afte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top