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

2011 MarsdenLR 840

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
IBRAHIM MOHAMAD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Amer Hamzah Arshad ,Respondent Advocate: Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud

Table of Content
1. details of charges and initial case facts. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial court's conviction based on possession evidence. (Para 3 , 4)
3. importance of proving mens rea in possession. (Para 5 , 6)
4. question of custody and control without sufficient evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. insufficient evidence to establish knowledge of drugs. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. consideration of conduct under evidence law. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
7. conclusion on appeal and new sentencing. (Para 22)
Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ:

[1] Both the appellants were jointly charged before the High Court at Kota Bharu in the State of Kelantan with an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the Act") for trafficking in 38,499.68 grammes of cannabis ("the said drug") and punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act read with s 34 of the Penal Code . They were tried and convicted by the High Court on the charge and sentenced to death. Their appeal before the Court of Appeal was heard and subsequently dismissed. They now appeal to this Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing their appeal. Before the High Court the first appellant, Ibrahim bin Mohamad was ref

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