2010 MarsdenLR 303
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
HOH BON TO – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: J-05-74-2008]
Trafficking in drugs requires both possession and knowledge of the drug's nature; mere passive possession is insufficient for a defense.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39B(1)(a) and 39B(2) - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 180(3), 180(4), and 182A(1) - Trafficking in drugs - Accused convicted for trafficking 81.43 grams of methamphetamine, sentenced to death; prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the learned Judicial Commissioner rejected the defence of innocent carrier. (Paras 3, 4, 61, 76)
(B) Prima facie case - Meaning of prima facie case explained in the context of the accused’s possession and knowledge. (Para 2)
(C) Defence - Accused's claim of being an innocent carrier was rejected based on evidence evaluation and witness credibility. (Paras 10, 18, 20, 24)
(D) Knowledge requirement - The court affirmed that knowledge of the nature of the drugs is essential for the possession criterion. Passive possession was insufficient in this context. (Paras 57, 61, 73) (E) Demeanor assessment - Importance of witness demeanor in credibility evaluation discussed. (Paras 25, 37) (F) Failure to call witness - The absence of the alleged trafficker as a witness did not weaken the prosecution's case. (Para 40)
Appeal
[1] The appellant ("the accused") was charged with trafficking in 81.43 grammes of methamphetamine on 30 August 2002 at 2.40am in front of room 2119, 21st floor, New York Hotel, Jalan Abdullah Tahir, Johor Bahru under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act.
[2] At the end of the prosecution's case, the learned Judicial Commissioner found that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the accused on the offence charged and called upon the accused to enter on his defence (see s 180(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the case of Balachandran v. PP , , FC). According to s 180(4) of the "a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction".
[3] At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Commissioner found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (see s 182A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code ) and found the accused guilty as per the charge and convicted him accordingly (see s 182A(2) of the ). The accused was sentenced to death.
[4] This is the accused's appeal against the conviction and sentence.
The Facts Of The Case
[5] Acting on information received, on 30 August 2002 at about 2.00am, Chief Inspector Arsad bin Kamaruddin (PW5) led a police party comprising three other police personnel to the 21st floor of New York Hotel at Jalan Abdullah Tahir, Johor Bahru and there they took up positions behind the door leading to the stairway adjacent to room 2119.
[6] About half an hour later, PW5 saw a male Chinese (subsequently identified as the accused) and a female Chinese by the name of Chong Ching Chyee (PW2) approaching room 2119. Without further ado, PW5 emerged from his hiding place and identified himself as "polis". According to PW5, both the accused and PW2 fled but were subsequently arrested at about five metres from room 2119.
[7] PW5 did a body search on the accused. From the front right trouser pocket, PW5 found a transparent plastic packet containing substances suspected to be syabu (exh P11). From the left front trouser pocket, PW5 found a transparent plastic packet. Inside that transparent plastic packet were 13 other smaller plastic packets each containing substances suspected to be syabu (exhs P13B1 to P13B13).
[8] The contents of these plastic packets were later analysed by the Government chemist (PW4) and found to contain 81.43 grammes of methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, and the subject matter of the charge.
[9] Nothing incriminating was found on PW2. Both the accused and PW2 were arrested. PW2 was subsequently released and she became a witness for the prosecution.
The Defence Of The Accused
[10] The accused gave his evidence from the dock. In essence, the defence of the accused was this. That he was an innocent carrier having physical possession of the drugs momentarily. His evidence may be summarised in this way.
[11] At the behest of PW2 (also known as Coco), the accused had given PW2 a lift home in the early hours of 30 August 2002. PW2 had a boyfriend known as Ah Siong. The accused also knew Ah Siong about one year before he was arrested. The accused had seen PW2 and Ah Siong together several times. Ah Siong was unable to send PW2 home because he was busy.
[12] According to the accused, as he was driving nearer to PW2's house she received a telephone call through her handphone from Ah Siong who told her that Ah Siong was in New York Hotel and that Ah Siong wanted her to fetch something from her house to be delivered to him. PW2 requested the accused to send her to meet Ah Siong. The accused agreed.
[13] On arrival at PW2's house, PW2 entered her house. About ten minutes later, PW2 emerged from her house and the accused then sent her to meet Ah Siong at New York Hotel.
[14] Upon arrival at New York Hotel, both the accused and PW2 took the lift to go to