Back
COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
NOR BEE BINTI ARIFFIN, J, LEE SWEE SENG, J, NORDIN BIN HASSAN, JJCA
Konradt Prosch – Appellant
Versus
Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case establishment (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial judge's findings at prosecution close (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. appellant's defence and appeal grounds (Para 7 , 10 , 29) |
| 4. application of presumption of possession and trafficking (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 16) |
| 5. knowledge and control in drug trafficking (Para 13 , 19) |
| 6. evaluation of chemist's evidence credibility (Para 22 , 37) |
| 7. credibility and reliability of witnesses in court (Para 23 , 30 , 32) |
| 8. trial judge's fidelity to appellate review standards (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 9. doctrine of wilful blindness in drug trafficking (Para 44 , 46) |
| 10. conclusion of the court's decision (Para 51) |
Introduction
[1]The appellant, a South African national, is appealing against the decision of the Shah Alam High Court judge in convicting the appellant for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs under section 39B(1)(a)Dangerous Drugs Act 1952section 39B(2)
The Prosecution’s case
[2]The case for the prosecution, established through its witnesses and accepted by the trial judge is relatively straight forward which is as follows. On 25.10.2014, at about 11.00 am, Lance Corporal Vyarra Sugara bin Kassim (SP5) tog
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
