Back
2024 MarsdenLR 893
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YI SHA – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-393-08/2018]
The court affirmed the conviction for drug trafficking, ruling that the appellant's defence of being an innocent carrier did not raise reasonable doubt against the presumption of possession.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Section 39B(1)(a) – Trafficking in dangerous drugs – The appellant was charged with trafficking Methamphetamine weighing 4,276.5 grams. The trial court acquitted the appellant, but the Court of Appeal ordered the defence to be called, finding sufficient evidence for trafficking. The High Court convicted the appellant, rejecting her defence of being an innocent carrier. (Paras 1, 4, 6, 22)
(B) Presumption of possession – The court held that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of possession under s 37(d) of the Act, and her defence was deemed a bare denial. (Paras 14, 19)
Facts of the case: The appellant, a Chinese national, was found with a bag containing drugs at an airport. She claimed ignorance of the drugs, asserting they belonged to others. (Paras 7-13)
Findings of Court: The court found the appellant guilty of trafficking, affirming the conviction and sentence of death. (Paras 21, 23)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence for trafficking and the validity of the appellant's defence. (Paras 15, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's defence did not raise reasonable doubt, and the large quantity of drugs indicated trafficking. (Paras 19, 21)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The appellant, a Chinese National was charged under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the Act") and the charge against her was as follows:
"Bahawa kamu pada 30 Disember 2013, lebih kurang jam 2.50 pagi di Mesin Pengimbas 3, Kaunter Pemeriksaan 3, Cawangan Pemeriksaan Penumpang 2, Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Terminal LCCT, di dalam Daerah Sepang, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine berat bersih 4,276.5 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."
[2] The appellant claimed trial to the charge and originally, at the end of the prosecution case, the learned trial Judge found that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the appellant, and hence the appellant was acquitted and discharged by the trial court without her defence being called. The learned trial Judge gave the following reasons for his findings:
"[19] Pada pendapat Mahkamah, jawapan SP3 bahawa beliau dibantu oleh dua Penolong Pegawai Sains masing-masing dalam pengendalian peralatan GCMS dan GCFID tanpa menerangkan skop tugas-tugas mereka secara terperinci telah meninggalkan "gap" dan menimbulkan persoalan siapakah sebenarnya yang menjalankan analisis tersebut. Lebih malang lagi apabila pihak pendakwaan langsung tidak meminta SP4 memberikan penjelasan terperinci semasa pemeriksaan semula. Dalam hal keadaan ini, timbul keraguan samada analisis tersebut dijalankan oleh Pegawai-Pegawai Sains atau SP3. Justeru Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa keterangan SP3 telah berjaya dipatahkan dan intipati pertuduhan gagal dibuktikan (rujuk kes PP v. Abuchi Ben James, [2015] 8 CLJ 1011, Ndukwe Victor Michael v. PP; [2016] 3 MLJ 317)."
[3] The learned trial Judge went on to say:
"[20] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa isu pemilikan dan pengedaran dadah berbahaya sudah menjadi tidak relevan lagi untuk dibincangkan apabila perkara subjek iaitu bahan kristal jernih gagal dibuktikan sebagai dadah berbahaya sepertimana pertuduhan.
[21] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan satu kes prima facie atas pertuduhan yang dihadapi oleh OKT. Oleh itu, OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri."
[4] Being dissatisfied, the prosecution appealed to the court of Appeal. The appeal was successful and the court of Appeal (first court of Appeal) ordered the defence to be called. In this regard, the court of Appeal in its broad ground of judgments decided as follows:
"Dua Pegawai Sains hanyalah membantu Ahli Kimia (SP3), mereka tidak terlibat dalam analisis, dengan itu adalah dua Pegawai Sains tersebut tidak relevan dan tiada gaps dalam kes Pendakwaan. Case Munusamy v. PP [held no 5] been referred and followed. Keterangan SP3 mencukupi untuk menentukan jenis dan berat dadah berbahaya tersebut. Mens rea possession, custody and control dibuktikan. Knowledge s 37(d) DDA 1952 telah diambil dan trafficking s 2 1952 that is carrying (membawa). Dengan itu, respondent to enter defence before same judge."
[5] The High court, as directed, heard the defence and at the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to death by the High court. It was the appellant's defence that she had no knowledge of the drugs found in the bag. The gist of the appellant's defence was that she was an innocent carrier.
[6] Aggrieved by the decision of the High court, the appellant appealed to the court of Appeal. We dismissed her appeal by a unanimous decision and these are our grounds.
The Background Facts
[7] To appreciate the issues, we shall now lay out the background facts leading to the charge as encapsulated by the trial Judge, with slight modifications. The appellant is a Chinese national and just arrived from Shenzen to Kuala Lumpur. At the time
