Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1734
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
NG MEE YEE & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: W-05(M)-128-03/2022]
Possession in drug trafficking requires both physical control and knowledge; inference of knowledge drawn from circumstances surrounding seizure confirms culpability under the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Conviction for drug trafficking - Two appellants charged with trafficking in methamphetamine, weighing 777.3 grams - Both convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court - Appeal dismissed by Court of Appeal after examining possession, knowledge, and conduct of appellants during police raid (Paras 1, 3, 5, 102).
(B) Possession and Knowledge - Elements of drug trafficking established by presence of dangerous drugs in unit rented by appellants and circumstances indicating their knowledge of drugs - Conduct of appellants during police raid and occupancy were critical in establishing exclusive possession and control (Paras 50-52, 117).
(C) Double Presumption - Court clarified that reliance on statutory presumption should be either on possession or trafficking, not both, thus no double presumption invoked in this case (Paras 106-115).
Facts of the case:
Appellants were accused of trafficking in methamphetamine found in a unit they rented; they argued that there was no knowledge or exclusive possession of drugs due to alleged access by other parties.
Findings of Court:
High Court found that prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt; evidence, including conduct of appellants, supported inference of knowledge and possession.
Issues: Whether exclusive possession and knowledge were established given contextual circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts elaborated the definitions of possession within drug laws emphasizing that possession requires knowledge as well as control - Appellants found to have both, leading to affirmation of conviction.
Result: Appeals dismissed; sentence modified to life imprisonment with specified penalties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused of drug trafficking. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details of the police raid. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. prosecution witnesses and prima facie case. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. defence of the appellants. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. concept and elements of possession. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. knowledge and mental element in possession. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. conduct of appellants and inferences drawn. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 8. inference of knowledge based on conduct. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 9. credibility of police witnesses upheld. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 10. dna evidence not critical for conviction. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 11. visibility of drugs found. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 12. appellants' control over discovered drugs. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
| 13. role of potential witnesses addressed. (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 14. prosecution's burden of proof discussed. (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85) |
| 15. court's interpretation of possession and knowledge. (Para 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90) |
| 16. conclusion on possession and access limits. (Para 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98) |
| 17. final verdict and sentences affirmed. (Para 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120) |
Introduction
[1] Both appellants were accused of having committed the offence of drug trafficking under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the DDA").
[2] The charge reads as follows:
"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 11 October 2018, jam lebih kurang 12.25 pagi di premis Unit 11-7, Taragon Time Service Unit, Jalan Changkat Thambi Dollah, dalam daerah Dang Wangi, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur bagi mencapai niat bersama telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu methamphetamine seberat 777.3 gram. Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama di bawah s 34 Kanun Keseksaan".
[3] The High Court had found both the appellants guilty and convicted them on the sole charge. They were sentenced to death.
[4] This was the appeal by the appellants against the said order of the High Court.
[5] At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, we unanimously dismissed the same, for the reasons set out hereunder.
The Prosecution Case
[6] On 10 October 2018, based on a police report on a suspicion of the commission of an offence concerning counterfeit money, at about 12.25 in the morning, Inspector Govind Kumar a/l Asokumar, the raiding officer (PW3) led a team of police personnel, accompanied by the second appellant to Unit 11-7, Taragon Time Service Unit, Jalan Changkat Thambi Dollah, in the district of Dang Wangi Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur ("the Unit").
[7] On arrival, the door to the Unit - a studio apartment - was found to be locked. It was then opened by the first appellant. PW3 introduced himself as a police inspector leading the team. The grill door was then opened by the first appellant. PW3 and his team entered the Unit. They discovered some papers related to counterfeit money. A body search was conducted on both appellants but nothing incriminating was found.
[8] However, on further inspection of the Unit, PW3 discovered a blue plastic packet written "VINDA DELUXE" in a space on the top part of a wardrobe in the bedroom area. After having unwrapped the blue packet, PW3 found one yellow plastic packet written "Refined Chinese Tea". In turn, upon opening the yellow plastic packet, the police team discovered one transparent plastic packet which was suspected to contain the illegal drugs - methamphetamine. PW3 also found four glass cylinders (Exhibit P18A-D) on the wardrobe table, suspected to be used for drugs. Both appellants were arrested.
[9] The raiding party then drove both the appellants and took the items recovered from the crime scene to IPD Sentul for further action, including ensuring th
