Back
2013 MarsdenLR 2385
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AMRAN SENIN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: W-05-254-09/2011]
Possession of drugs can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and conduct, which constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction under drug trafficking laws.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39B and 6 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 178(2) - Trafficking and possession of dangerous drugs - Appellant charged with trafficking cannabis - Convicted and sentenced to death after trial - High Court found prima facie case established and appellant pleaded guilty to amended charge of possession - No appealable errors found by the higher court. (Paras 1, 3-6, 60)
(B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Possession and trafficking - Evidence of possession established through circumstantial evidence and conduct of appellant - Flight and behavior deemed indicative of guilt. (Paras 42-46, 60)
Facts of the case:
Appellant charged with possessing and trafficking cannabis found in vehicle during police operation. Police observed suspicious behavior leading to arrest. Amended charge followed guilty plea to possession but appellant contested original trafficking charge resulting in High Court conviction. (Paras 1-4, 8, 60)
Findings of Court:
The High Court affirmed evidence of possession and circumstances of arrest justified the conviction of trafficking, concluding appellant failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking. (Paras 44-60)
Issues: Whether prosecution established prima facie case for trafficking, and whether the appellant's defenses adequately rebutted possession and trafficking charges. (Paras 25-36)
Ratio Decidendi: Court highlighted the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the presumption of knowledge regarding possession of drugs, noting that mere denial by the appellant was not enough to establish reasonable doubt. (Paras 41-60)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charge and conviction process details. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appeal process and high court decisions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. conviction and appeal from sentencing. (Para 7) |
| 4. police arrest narrative and evidence collection. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. appellant's defense statements and claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. evaluation of evidence and discrepancies. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. witness testimony consistency and reliability. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. analysis of police procedures and evidence. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. court's evaluation of possession and evidence. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 10. inference of guilt from appellant's actions. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 11. inference of guilt from appellant's conduct. (Para 45) |
| 12. trial judge's duty to evaluate defence. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 13. fingerprint evidence discussed. (Para 53 , 54) |
| 14. allegations of police misconduct. (Para 55) |
[1] On 19 June 2006, the appellant was charged before the High Court at Kuala Lumpur for trafficking in dangerous drugs, to wit, 2,741 grammes of cannabis, an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA") and punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act. The original charge reads as follows:-
"Bahawa kamu pada 14 Mac 2005, kira-kira pukul 8.30 malam, di kawasan tempat letak kereta Restoran Nelayan Titiwangsa, Kuala Lumpur, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya, iaitu, cannabis seberat 2,741 gram dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952."
[2] The hearing before the High Court started on 13 July 2009 and the prosecution closed its case on 1 October 2009. And on 17 November 2009, after hearing the submissions of both parties, the High Court found that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the appellant for an offence under s 6 of the DDA and punishable under s 39A(2) of the . The High Court drafted the amended charge and it was worded as follows:-
"Bahawa kamu pada 14 Mac 2005, kira-kira pukul 8.30 malam, di kawasan tempat letak kereta Restoran Nelayan Titiwangsa, Kuala Lumpur, telah didapati memiliki dadah berbahaya, iaitu, cannabis seberat 2,741 gram dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama."
[3] On 10 December 2009, the appellant pleaded guilty to the amended charge and the High Court in compliance with s 178(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC") had ascertained that the appellant understood the nature and consequences of his plea and that the appellant intended to admit, without qualification, the amended charge against him (see page 154 of the appeal record at Jilid 1). The High Court then sentenced the appellant to twelve (12) years imprisonment from the date of his arrest and ten (10) strokes of the rattan.
[4] Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the amended charge, the prosecution filed an appeal to this Court. On 30 June 2011, after hearing submissions of both parties, another panel of this Court found that a prima facie case had been made out against the appellant on the original charge and ordered the appellant to enter his defence on the original charge. The case was then remitted back to the High Court on 7 July 2011 for the defence to be called on the original charge.
[5] On 5 August 2011, the High Court heard the defence of the appellant who testified under oath. The appellant did not call any other witness After hearing the defence, the High Court adjourned the case to 17 August 2011 for the submissions to be made. And on 17 August 2011, after hearing the submissions of both parties, the High Court reserved its decision to 19 August 2011.
[6] On 19 August 2011, the High Court delivered its decision and convicted the appellant on the original charge and sentenced him to death.
[7] Aggrieved
