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

2010 MarsdenLR 2911

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KOH TIONG HOCK – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Gurbachan Singh ,Respondent Advocate: Wong Chiang Kiat

Table of Content
1. conviction details and drug evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. confession and knowledge of drug possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. admissibility of the confession statement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. knowledge and mens rea in trafficking law. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 19)
5. distinction between drug in transit and trafficking. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
Tengku Baharudin Shah JCA:

[1] The appellant was tried and convicted by the Penang High Court for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drug committed on 21 July 2000 at about 4pm at the departure gate of the Bayan Lepas International Airport in Penang. He was duly sentenced as mandated under s 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA). We heard his appeal and dismissed it, we affirmed the conviction and sentence.

[2] The facts of the case are basically undisputed. On the date and at the time as stated in the charge the appellant was waiting to exit at the departure gate No 6 when he was arrested by SP4 and SP5 and taken to the Airport Police Station where a body search was carried out on him. Eight transparent plastic packets (P12A-H) containing tablets were found taped to his abdomen, three each in the front and back and one on each side

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