AHMAD FAHMI BIN MOHD HASNU v Pendakwa Raya

b-05sh-232-05-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 23 March 2025 • B-05(SH)-232-05/2024 • 35 min read
24 cases cited (0 SG, 24 foreign)

Catchwords

Kesalahan dibawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama - Isu-isu: (A) Sama Ada Tertuduh Mempunyai Jagaan Dan Kawalan Terhadap Dadah Yang Dirampas - (B) Sama Ada Tertuduh Mempunyai Pengetahuan Terhadap Dadah Yang Dirampas - (C) Sama Ada Tertuduh Telah Mengedar Dadah Tersebut - (D) Ketiadaan Keterangan CCTV Di Tempat Kejadian Atau Kesan Cap Jari Tertuduh Pada Ekshibit P8 Tersebut - Keterangan forensik seperti CCTV atau kesan cap jari hanya mempunyai nilai sokongan yang kecil - Keterangan tertuduh tidak kredibel, suatu pemikiran terkemudian dan penafian semata-mata - keterangan saksi pembelaan tidak dapat menyokong pembelaan tertuduh serta tidak konsisten dengan keterangan tertuduh - pembelaan bersifat simple denial - pihak pembelaan telah gagal untuk mematahkan anggapan pengetahuan di bawah seksyen 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - dadah yang dirampas daripada milikan tertuduh adalah untuk tujuan pengedaran

Practice Areas

Kesalahan dibawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Delivered Hashim bin Hamzah Coram

Counsel (3)

Chambers of Richard Ho & Yap Firm Atiqah binti Abdul Karim @ Husaini Counsel Prosecution Richard Ho Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Ahmad Fahmi bin Mohd Hasnu Appellant

Case Significance

AHMAD FAHMI BIN MOHD HASNU v Pendakwa Raya is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated March 23, 2025 (citation: b-05sh-232-05-2024). <p>The appellant was convicted of trafficking 1,464.5 grams of methamphetamine found in his possession near Rusella Apartment in Seri Kembangan. The key issues included custody and control of the drugs, the appellant's knowledge, and the absence of CCTV or fingerprint evidence, which the court held to be merely corroborative. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the life imprisonment (30 years) sentence and 12 strokes of whipping.</p> The panel comprised Azman bin Abdullah, Azmi bin Ariffin and Hashim bin Hamzah, with Azmi bin Ariffin delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Atiqah binti Abdul Karim @ Husaini (prosecution counsel), Richard Ho (counsel for appellant).

Summary

The appellant was convicted of trafficking 1,464.5 grams of methamphetamine found in his possession near Rusella Apartment in Seri Kembangan. The key issues included custody and control of the drugs, the appellant's knowledge, and the absence of CCTV or fingerprint evidence, which the court held to be merely corroborative. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the life imprisonment (30 years) sentence and 12 strokes of whipping.

What was the outcome of AHMAD FAHMI BIN MOHD HASNU v Pendakwa Raya?

<p>The appellant was convicted of trafficking 1,464.5 grams of methamphetamine found in his possession near Rusella Apartment in Seri Kembangan. The k...

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Cases Cited (24)

UK (1)
[1974] 2 All ER 840
MY (23)
[1969] 2 MLJ 209 [1969] MLRA 382 [1980] 2 MLJ 195 [1983] 2 CLJ 10 [1983] 2 MLJ 232 [1989] 2 CLJ 442 [1992] 1 CLJ 180 [1995] 3 CLJ 639 [1997] 1 CLJ 233 [2000] 1 CLJ 105 [2001] 1 CLJ 381 [2005] 1 CLJ 1 [2006] 2 CLJ 129 [2006] 5 CLJ 436 [2007] 4 CLJ 337 [2008] 6 MLJ 19 [2010] 6 MLJ 145 [2011] 1 CLJ 273 [2012] 2 CLJ 1006 [2012] 2 CLJ 178 [2016] 5 CLJ 533 [2017] 1 CLJ 575 [2017] 1 CLJ 617