ONG HOOI BENG & ORS vs PP - 2015 MarsdenLR 501

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 MarsdenLR 501

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ONG HOOI BENG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Ranjit Singh Dhillon ,Respondent Advocate: Asmah Musa

Table of Content
1. the core facts established that the factory was used for drug processing. (Para 1 , 5 , 7 , 16)
2. the defense's claim of ignorance was not credible against strong evidences. (Para 19 , 20 , 23 , 24)
3. the evidence met the necessary legal standards to uphold the convictions. (Para 52 , 68)
4. discrepancies in evidence did not undermine the prosecution's case in drug identification. (Para 60 , 72 , 75)

Abdul Rahman Sebli JCA:

[1] In the High Court at Alor Setar Kedah the 3 appellants together with 3 others were charged with an offence of doing an act preparatory to trafficking in dangerous drugs, an offence under s 39B(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('the DDA '). The charge against them is as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 09 Julai 2006 jam lebih kurang 4.00 petang, di Kilang ZMAS SYNERGY Sdn Bhd, Plot 935, Lorong Makmur 13/1, Taman Makmur, Lunas, dalam Negeri Kedah Darul Aman, dalam lanjutan dari niat bersama, telah melakukan suatu perbuatan sebagai persediaan bagi tujuan mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 368,126.26 gram, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(c), ADB 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 MarsdenLR 501

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAONG HOOI BENG & ORS – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ONG HOOI BENG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent