Hamid Sultan JCA (delivering judgment of the court):

[1]Both the appellant/accused’s appeal against conviction and sentence came up for hearing on 25 January 2013 and upon hearing we were unanimous in allowing the appeals. My learned brothers Mohamed Apandi bin Hj Ali JCA and Linton Albert JCA have read the draft judgment and approved the same. This is our judgment.

[2]At the outset we must say this is a classic case of mistrial as well as miscarriage of justice. The judgment reflects that the learned trial judge had not directed her mind to the criminal procedure code, practice and procedure relating to criminal jurisprudence. Such a judgment is unusual in capital punishment cases. We will elaborate this issue in later part of the judgment.

[3]The first and the second appellant are represented by different solicitors. Learned counsel for the second appellant by and large adopts the submission of the first appellant. Learned counsel for the first appellant summarises the complaints to four issues which is reflected in the petition of appeal. They are as follows:

(a)the learned trial judge misdirected herself when she failed to direct her mind to the alternative charges preferred. Further, at the end of the defence case Her Ladyship failed to rule whether the prosecution had proved the trafficking charge in respect of the 12g of nimetazepam (P5) has been proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt;

(b)the learned trial judge erred in law and in fact when she prematurely and/or wrongly impeached both SP2 (Taj Malaysia Singh) and SD2 (Lim Sek Yee);

(c)the learned trial judge misdirected herself when she found that there was mens rea for possession proven and in any event she erred in invoking the trafficking definition under s 2Dangerous Act 1952

(d)the learned trial judge erred when she failed to appreciate the defence of the first appellant.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CHARGE AND JUDGMENT

[4]Both the appellant’s as per exh P4 (charge) were charged for trafficking in 143.8g of methamphetamine under s 39B(1)(a)Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘DDA 1952’)s 34Penal Code

[5]As alternative to both the charges, they were charged for possession, as per exhs P6 and P7 under s 12(2)DDA 1952s 39A(2)s 34Penal Code

P4

Bahawa kamu bersama pada 3hb Februari 2008, jam lebih kurang 6.30 petang di kawasan Restoran Hwa Keng, Jalan Kenari 6, Bandar Puchong Jaya, Puchong, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan dalam melaksanakan niat bersama, kamu telah memperedarkan dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 143.8 gram dan dengan itu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a)Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952Seksyen 39B(2)Akta yang samaSeksyen 34Kanun Keseksaan

P5

Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 3hb Februari 2008, jam lebih kurang 6.30 petang di kawasan Restoran Hwa Keng, Jalan Kenari 6, Bandar Puchong Jaya, Puchong, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan dalam melaksanakan niat bersama, kamu telah memperedarkan 2000 biji pil yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Nimetazepam seberat 12.0 gram dan dengan itu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a)Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952Seksyen 39B(2)Akta yang samaSeksyen 34Kanun Keseksaan

Alternative charges:

P6

Bahawa kamu pada 3hb Februari 2008, jam lebih kurang 6.30 petang di kawasan Restoran Hwa Keng, Jalan Kenari 6, Bandar Puchong Jaya, Puchong, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, lanjutan dari niat bersama kamu, didapati telah ada dalam milikan kamu dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 143.8 gram dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12(2)Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952Seksyen 39A(2)Akta yang samaSeksyen 34

P7

Bahawa kamu pada 3hb Februari 2008, jam lebih kurang 6.30 petang di kawasan Restoran Hwa Keng, Jalan Kenari 6, Bandar Puchong Jaya, Puchong, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, lanjutan dari niat bersama kamu, didapati telah ada dalam milikan kamu dadah berbahaya