Lim Zhen Qiang v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates how the large quantity of drugs and an appellant's failure to rebut the statutory trafficking presumption defeat a claim of no knowledge in a section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 appeal, the conviction and life sentence being affirmed.

This decision of the Court of Appeal at Putrajaya disposes of six consolidated criminal appeals by six appellants, each separately convicted at the High Court at Shah Alam of trafficking in dangerous drugs under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952). The charges concerned a large quantity of methamphetamine — the lead charge specifying 1,297.02 grams — and each appellant had been sentenced to imprisonment for life (expressed as 30 years) from the date of arrest together with 15 strokes of the rotan. This appeal is that of the first of the six appellants, and it was heard with the others because they arose from the same operation and raised common issues.

The grounds argued across the appeals included whether the appellants lacked knowledge of the drugs found, whether they were ignorant of the true nature of what they carried, whether the "innocent carrier" defence was available, whether the defence of duress arose, whether the Alcontara notice had been properly given, and whether the defence had been given due consideration. For this appellant the central complaint was the alleged absence of knowledge of the drugs. The Court of Appeal held that the sheer quantity of drugs involved supported the inference that they were intended for distribution and undermined any claim of innocent ignorance, and that the appellant had failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the element of knowledge or to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking on the balance of probabilities. Finding that the High Court had correctly evaluated the evidence and that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the court held there was no merit warranting appellate intervention. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed. The judgment illustrates how the quantity of drugs and the failure to rebut the trafficking presumption defeat a claim of no knowledge.