Hamid Sultan JCA (delivering judgment of the court):

[1]The appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence of death pursuant to s 39B(1)(a)Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘DDA’)

[2]The accused was charged under s 39B(1)(a) which reads as follows:

Bahawa kamu pada 8 Disember 2010, lebih kurang jam 7.30 malam, di Balai Ketibaan Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Pulau Pinang, di dalam daerah Barat Daya, di dalam negeri Pulau Pinang telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine, seberat 770.2 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a)Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952Seksyen 39(B)(2)Akta yang sama

The English translation of the charge will read as follows:

That you on 8 December 2010, at about 7.30 p m at the Arrival Hall, Penang International Airport, in the Barat Daya district, in the state of Penang was found trafficking in dangerous drug Methamphetamine, weighing 770.2 grams, thereby committing an offence under section 39B(1)(a)Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA)section 39(B)(2)same Act

[3]In the instant case the learned trial judge in his 31 page judgment had gone through the facts and law and we do not wish to repeat the same save where it is necessary.

[4]The appellant has raised eight grounds of appeal which almost overlaps with one another. One of the issues raised in the grounds is a complaint that the learned trial judge had misdirected himself relating to Mat v Public Prosecutor Mohamad Radhi bin Yaakob v Public Prosecutor ;

(1)Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila membuat satu keputusan yang bertentangan dengan fakta.

(2)Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila membuat adverse inferen terhadap tertuduh yang telah memudaratkan tertuduh.

(3)Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal untuk mengambil kira pembelaan tertuduh mengikut prinsip Mat v PP yang jelas menunjukkan satu salah arah yang telah mengakibatkan satu ‘miscarriage of justice’.

(4)Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mengambilkira inferen yang berpihak kepada tertuduh yang telah mengakibatkan satu ‘miscarriage of justice’.

(5)Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah mengambilkira perkara yang tidak relevan dalam membuat keputusan tersebut yang jelas telah melakukan satu ‘miscarriage of justice’ kepada tertuduh.

(6)Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah gagal untuk mengambilkira tentang pecahan dalam rantaian eksibit yang mana jika diambilkira, tertuduh akan dilepaskan dan dibebaskan.

(7)Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang apabila memanggil tetuduh untuk membela diri secara salah dari segi undang-undang.

(8)Berpandukan kepada fakta-fakta di atas serta OKT adalah seorang penghidap HIV (tahap 4), pohon rayuan untuk dibenarkan dan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi diketepikan.

If it is translated in English it will read as follows:

(1)The learned High Court Judge erred in law and fact in making a finding contradictory to facts.

(2)The learned High Court Judge erred in law by invoking adverse inference detrimental to the appellant.

(3)The learned High Court Judge erred in law in failing to consider the appellant’s defence based on the principle of Mat v PP leading to a misdirection causing miscarriage of justice.

(4)The learned High Court Judge erred in law in failing to adopt the inference favourable to the appellant causing miscarriage of justice.

(5)The learned High Court Judge erred in law by taking into account irrelevant facts in making a decision which caused miscarriage of justice.

(6)The learned High Court Judge failed to take into account the break in the chain of evidence, which otherwise would lead to the appellant’s acquittal and discharge.

(7)The learned High Court Judge erred in law by calling the a