Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 MarsdenLR 1601

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
HARI BAHADUR GHALE – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: W-05-351-2009]

Petitioner Advocates:Rajpal Singh,Musfirah Mohd Tahir ,Respondent Advocate: Ahmad Bachik

Evidence from an agent provocateur can establish a prima facie case in drug trafficking without the need for corroboration, proving possession and knowledge of the accused.

Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1) and (2) - Penal Code - Section 34 - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Appellant and second accused found guilty of trafficking 875.2 grammes of heroin; sentenced to death - Charge established by direct evidence from a drug enforcement agency agent acting as provocateur - Prima facie case found sufficient by the court. (Paras 1, 28, 62)

(B) Possession and knowledge - Possession of drugs requires evidence of control, mens rea, and intent to sell - Appellants' knowledge of drugs inferred from their conduct and discussions leading to the transaction. (Paras 30-32)

(C) Admissibility of evidence - Evidence from agent provocateur does not require corroboration as per Section 40A of the Dangerous Drugs Act - Sufficient for conviction where direct evidence is credible. (Paras 47, 49)

(D) Defence strategies - Appellant’s claim of wrongful framing lacked credibility and was deemed an afterthought by the court - Minimal currency found on accused challenged the money exchange defense. (Paras 77-80)(E) Final decision - The trial court's findings are upheld, conviction is affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed. (Paras 117, 118)

Table of Content
1. appellant charged for heroin trafficking. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. investment by dea agent leading to capture. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. setup for the undercover operation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
4. drug transaction and arrest evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. chemist confirms the drugs are heroin. (Para 27)
6. prima facie case on possession established. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
7. knowledge and possession defined legally. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
8. agent provocateur evidence and its admissibility. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
9. importance of corroboration and witness credibility. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
10. single witness suffices for proof. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
11. contentions dismissed; credible evidence exists. (Para 49 , 50 , 51)
12. negligible amounts undermine currency exchange defense. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
13. meetings established drug trafficking intent. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
14. direct trafficking proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 62 , 63)
15. appellant's defense deemed an afterthought. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
16. trial discrepancies noted under cross-examination. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)
17. identity defense raised but not substantive. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
18. failure to cross-examine implied acceptance. (Para 79 , 80 , 81)
19. implications of cross-examination failures. (Para 82 , 83 , 84)
20. identity of sp4 sufficiently established. (Para 85 , 86)
21. prosecution met on all defined grounds. (Para 87 , 88 , 89)
22. findings of fact are upheld. (Para 90 , 91)
23. no substantial errors found in trial. (Para 92 , 93 , 94)
24. no requirement for all witnesses to be called. (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99)
25. common intention and role confirmed. (Para 100 , 101 , 102)
26. decision upheld, no errors found. (Para 103 , 104 , 105 , 106)
27. court references affirm the final decision. (Para 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113)
28. landmark affirmations on evidence standards. (Para 114 , 115 , 116)
29. conviction and sentence affirmed. (Para 117)

Abdul Malik Ishak JCA:

Introduction

[1] The appellant herein was the first accused before the High Court at Kuala Lumpur and he was charged together with another person by the name of Sajan Gurung (hereinafter referred to as the "second accused") for trafficking in dangerous drugs, to wit, 875. 2 grammes of heroin under s 39B(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "DDA") read together with s 34 of the Penal Code . At the end of the trial both the appellant and the second accused were found guilty and they were convicted and sentenced to death pursuant to s 39B(2) of the .

[2] The second accused died in prison while waiting for his appeal to be heard by this Court. Consequently, the second accused's appeal was dismissed by this Court.

[3] We are only concerned with the appeal of the present appellant herein. But where necessary, reference would also be made to the role played by the second accused in this judgment bearing in mind that the prosecution invoked s 34 of the Penal Code in order to prove the offence of trafficking.

[4] The charge against the appellant and the second accused (since deceased) before the High Court at Kuala Lumpur was worded in this way:-

"Bahawa kamu pada 30 Mei 2003 lebih kurang jam 2. 00 petang di bilik no: 1109, Federal Hotel, Jalan Bukit Bintang, dalam daerah Dang Wangi, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, telah dengan niat bersama mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu 875. 2 gram heroin. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dibaca bersama s 34 Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama. "

The Facts

[5] Mr Mensah Marlon Carl (SP4) worked with a drug enforcement agency of the United States of America with its headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand. SP4 acted as an agent provocateur to gather information and evidence and eventually arrest drug traffickers in Malaysia.

[6]

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 MarsdenLR 1601

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAHARI BAHADUR GHALE – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent[Criminal Appeal No: W-05-351-2009]

Evidence from an agent provocateur can establish a prima facie case in drug trafficking without the need for corroboration, proving possession and knowledge of the accused.

Cases Referred (3)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
HARI BAHADUR GHALE – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: W-05-351-2009]