The court determined that the accused's possession of a significant quantity of drugs establishes trafficking unless a reasonable doubt is successfully raised against the prosecution's case.

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the learned judge of the High Court of Kota Bharu who, on 16 June 2008, had convicted the appellant (the accused) of the charge of trafficking in 1996.7 grams of cannabis, a capital offence under s. 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('the DDA') , and had sentenced him to death under s. 39B(2) of the .

[2] The appellant, Mr Ouseng Sama-Ae, is a Thai national. The charge against him states:

Bahawa kamu pada 10/1/2002 jam lebih kurang 3.20 petang berada di beranda rumah (GDMA 8/1) Kg. Berek, Gong Dermin, Banggu, 16150 Kota Bharu di dalam Jajahan Kota Bharu, di dalam Negeri Kelantan didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis "Cannabis" berat bersih 1996.7 gram, dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (Semakan Akta 1980) dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama .

[3] The present hearing before us is not the first time that this case has come before the Court of Appeal. We shall narrate briefly the history of this case. Earlier, on 17 July 2003, at the trial before the High Court, at the close of the case for the prosecution, the learned trial judge had, after hearing submissions, amended the charge against the accused. The learned judge found that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case of trafficking in cannabis against the accused. The learned Judge found that the prosecution had only succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of a lesser offence: the offence of possession of cannabis under s. 6 of the DDA , punishable under s. 39A(2) of the . When the learned judge called upon the accused to enter his defence on the reduced charge of possession of cannabis, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly.

[4] The public prosecutor (now the respondent before us) was dissatisfied with the decision of the learned trial judge in reducing the charge to that of possession of cannabis. He appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 20 November 2007 the Court of Appeal allowed the public prosecutor's appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled that the learned judge erred in ruling that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case of trafficking in cannabis and in reducing the charge to that of possession of cannabis. The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and sentence of the High Court and remitted the case back to the High Court directing the High Court to call for the defence on the original charge of trafficking under s. 39B(1)(a) of the DDA .

[5] On 1 April 2008 the trial before the High Court of Kota Bharu was continued before the same trial judge. In accordance with the direction of the Court of Appeal, the learned trial judge called upon the accused to enter his defence on the original charge of trafficking. The accused elected to give evidence on oath. At the close of the case for the defence, after having heard submissions, the learned judge found that the accused had failed to raise a reasonable doubt against the prosecution case. He was convicted and sentenced accordingly. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeal against the conviction and sentence. It is this appeal that we are now hearing.

[6] The judgment of the Court of Appeal in the earlier appeal is reported in the law journal (see Pendakwa Raya v. Ouseng Sama-Ae , [2008] 1 CLJ 337 ). The judgment clearly sets out the facts of the case. They are as follows:

The facts relevant to the appeal are as follows. On January 10, 2002, Assistant Superintendent of Police Ramli Muda (PW3) acting on information he received proceeded to house GDMA 8/1 at Kampong Berek, Gong Dermin, Bangg