The court affirmed that actual possession and knowledge of illicit drugs can be inferred from the accused's conduct, rejecting the defense of innocence based on implausible claims.

JUDGMENT

Alwi Abdul Wahab JCA:

Introduction

[1] Before us, the appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs to wit, 2320.5 grams of Methamphetamine under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (" DDA ") and punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act.

[2] At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge found that the prosecution had proven its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. A guilty verdict was pronounced and conviction was entered against the appellant on the preferred charge of trafficking. The appellant was sentenced to death by hanging.

The Charge

"That you, on the 22 February 2019 at about 2.00 pm at City- Link Express, Lot 8826, Section 64, KTLD, Jalan Datuk Abang Abdul Rahim, in the District of Kuching, in the State of Sarawak did traffic in dangerous drugs, to wit, 2320.5 grams of Methamphetamine and thereby you have committed an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs 1952 and punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act."

The Prosecution's Case

[3] The facts of the case as gathered by the learned trial judge can be summarized as follows. On 20 February 2019, the Superintendent of Customs, Oliver Tiong (PW8) received information regarding some drug trafficking activities in Kuching. Based on the information received, on 22 February 2019, he led a team of Custom officers to the City Link office Kuching at Lot 8826, Section 64, KTLD, Jalan Datuk Abang Abdul Rahim, Kuching, Sarawak, to conduct surveillance and the team was duly briefed to arrest anyone who would come to collect a parcel with consignment note nos 060307070446923 and 060307075018695.

[4] At about 1.55 pm. on the same day, the Assistant Superintendent of Customs, Si Kui San (PW3) who was one of the members of the raiding team saw a Chinese man, later identified to be the appellant entered the office of the City Link, Kuching. The appellant was seen to give particulars of a package or parcel to Haslan bin Kaswadi (PW7), a staff of City Link who was earlier briefed to man the collection counter. Shortly thereafter, PW7 collected the parcel (P8) from a room in the customer service section and handed it over to the appellant. The appellant took P8 from PW7 and exited the entrance door while PW3 followed suit and tailed the appellant closely from behind.

[5] When the appellant was just right outside the City Link office, PW3 saw the appellant tear off part of the affixed consignment note on the said P8 and threw it on the floor. At this point in time, the raiding team led by the Superintendent of Customs, Oliver Tiong (PW8) who were doing the surveillance outside the City Link office sprang into action and rushed towards the appellant. The appellant then tried to run away and at the same time threw P8 on the floor. The raiding team managed to subdue and arrest the appellant.

[6] The said parcel P8 was seized and investigation was carried out. The torn-off part of the consignment note was never produced by the prosecution and its whereabout remains unexplained.

[7] P8 was found to contain a crystalline substance suspected to be drugs. The government chemist Puan Aishah Bt. Abdul Aziz (PW5) had analysed the said crystalline substance and through her evidence and chemist report dated 8 March 2019 (Exh. P16), she confirmed that it was Methamphetamine which is listed under the First Schedule of the DDA with a net weight of 2320.5 grams

The Findings Of The Learned Trial Judge At The End Of The Prosecution's Case

[8] From his appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial judge found actual possession as having been established by the prosecution. The appellant had custody and control over the drugs from the time he received P8 until the time he was apprehended by the Customs officers raiding team.

[9] In order to prove that the appellant had knowledge of the impugned drugs in parcel P8, the learned trial judge had inferred the presence of knowledge from the facts of the case. When t