Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1925
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TAN MING ANN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: Q-05(M)-229-05/2022]
Knowledge inferred from actions can prove possession of illegal items, reinforcing that fleeing from law enforcement signifies awareness of guilt.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39B(1)(a) and 39B(2) - Conviction for trafficking in 2320.5 grams of Methamphetamine - Prosecution proved possession beyond reasonable doubt, with appellant's actions of fleeing and discarding parcel indicating knowledge of its contents - Defence of innocent carrier rejected due to lack of credibility - Findings upheld, appeal dismissed with modified sentence of 30 years imprisonment. (Paras 1-55)
(B) Knowledge and possession - The act of throwing the parcel when approached by law enforcement suggests consciousness of guilt, which was corroborated by witness testimony. (Paras 33-39)
(C) Evidentiary standards - The appellate court concurs with trial judge's assessment of evidence credibility and reliability, dismissing claims of judicial error. (Paras 47-52)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction for drug trafficking established. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts of seizure and identification of drugs. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. establishment of possession and knowledge of drugs. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. appellant's defense claims lack credibility. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. judge found defenses unconvincing. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. defense claims regarding appellant's reaction contested. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. court's agreement with trial judge's reasoning. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. witness testimonies confirm appellant's guilty conduct. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. analysis and handling of drug evidence deemed reliable. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 10. defendant's fabricated character undermines credibility. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 11. court upholds conviction and modifies sentence. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
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 t
