AHMAD FARIDZ BIN MOHD FADZIL v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the proof of custody, control, and knowledge for a cannabis-cultivation conviction under section 6B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and confirms the mandatory nature of the sentence prescribed under section 6B(3).

This High Court decision at Taiping is an appeal against conviction and sentence for offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952), including the cultivation of cannabis. The appellant had been convicted in the Sessions Court, the first charge being for cultivating cannabis contrary to section 6B(1)(a) of the Act, punishable under section 6B(3), after the police, acting on surveillance, found and seized three cannabis plants in the backyard of his house. He appealed to the High Court against both conviction and sentence.

The conviction turned on possession and knowledge in relation to the plants and premises. The court considered whether the appellant had custody or control of the place where the plants were found and knowledge of them, whether the prosecution had excluded access to the premises by others, whether an admission the appellant was said to have made to his mother was admissible, and whether a prima facie case had been established such that the presumption under section 6B(4) was engaged. It addressed the evidential burden that fell on the appellant, whether that of raising a reasonable doubt or, where a presumption applied, of rebutting it on the balance of probabilities. Finding that the elements were established and that the appellant had not displaced the case against him, the court held that the Sessions Court judge had made no error of law or fact that would render the conviction unsafe.

On sentence, the court noted that the punishment prescribed under section 6B(3) is a mandatory one, and that, at least in respect of the cultivation charge involving the three seized plants, the sentencing court had no discretion to impose a lenient sentence despite the appellant's plea in mitigation. Finding the sentence to be in accordance with law and the seriousness of the offence, and finding no error rendering the conviction unsafe, the court dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence. The judgment illustrates the proof of the cultivation offence under section 6B and the mandatory nature of the prescribed sentence.