Tay Cher Boon v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

b-05sh-354-09-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 29 July 2025 • B-05(SH)-354-09/2023 • 63 min read
28 cases cited (3 SG, 25 foreign)

Catchwords

seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Kegagalan hakim bicara untuk menghargai kes pembelaan sehingga menyebabkan berlaku pelanggaran seksyen 182A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk menawarkan penyewa premis rumah tersebut kepada pihak pembelaan telah menyekat hak perayu untuk mendapat perbicaraan yang adil - anggapan penghuni premis mengikut seksyen 37(b) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - prinsip inferens yang menentang - seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - keterangan yang melimpah ruah - Perayu telah dinafikan haknya untuk mendapat perbicaraan yang adil apabila pihak pendakwaan gagal untuk mengemukakan fakta yang menyebelahi perayu - seksyen 51A(1)(c) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk mendedahkan percakapan beramaran - ketidakaturan yang tidak membawa kepada salah laksana keadilan - penyalahgunaan anggapan statutori mengikut seksyen 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - “dianggap mempunyai pengetahuan” (deemed knowledge) - “dianggap memiliki” deemed possession) - pemilikan terus (direct possession) - memprejudiskan kerana telah meletakkan beban yang lebih tinggi - milikan sebenar (actual possession) mengikut seksyen 37(da) dibaca bersama dapatan pengedaran melalui keterangan terus (direct evidence) mengikut seksyen 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya - evidential burden yang pikul hanyalah untuk menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah - kesilapan telah memprejudiskan kerana meletakkan beban yang tinggi pada perayu untuk mematahkan anggapan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian - tiga tahap pembuktian - Pertama, melampaui keraguan yang munasabah (beyond reasonable doubt) - Kedua, imbangan kebarangkalian (balance of probabilities) - Ketiga, keraguan yang munasabah (create a reasonable doubt ) - perayu didapati bersalah terhadap kesalahan pemilikan

Practice Areas

seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Delivered Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan Coram

Counsel (9)

Hisyam Teh (Kuala Lumpur) Firm Ee Men You Counsel Appellant Hisyam Teh Poh Teik Counsel Appellant Kee Wei Lon Counsel Appellant Khairuzzaman Ridha Counsel Appellant Low Wei Looke Counsel Appellant Siti Nazihah Tan Binti Amir Counsel Appellant Siti Summaiyah Binti Ahmad Jaafar Counsel Appellant Zaki Asyraf Bin Zubir Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Tay Cher Boon Appellant

Case Significance

Tay Cher Boon v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated July 29, 2025 (citation: b-05sh-354-09-2023). <p>The appellant was convicted of trafficking three types of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine, ketamine, and MDMA) with a deceased co-accused at a house in Setia Alam. The Court of Appeal found it unsafe to sustain the trafficking convictions due to the trial judge's failure to properly evaluate the defence and the misapplication of statutory presumptions. The trafficking convictions were set aside and substituted with possession convictions, with sentences of 12 years (methamphetamine and MDMA) The panel comprised Azman bin Abdullah, Azmi bin Ariffin and Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan, with Azmi bin Ariffin delivering the judgment.

Summary

The appellant was convicted of trafficking three types of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine, ketamine, and MDMA) with a deceased co-accused at a house in Setia Alam. The Court of Appeal found it unsafe to sustain the trafficking convictions due to the trial judge's failure to properly evaluate the defence and the misapplication of statutory presumptions. The trafficking convictions were set aside and substituted with possession convictions, with sentences of 12 years (methamphetamine and MDMA) and 3 years (ketamine), running concurrently.

What was the outcome of Tay Cher Boon v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]?

<p>The appellant was convicted of trafficking three types of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine, ketamine, and MDMA) with a deceased co-accused at a hou...

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Cases Cited (28)

SLR (3)
[1996] 1 SLR 510 [1998] 1 SLR 663 [1999] 2 SLR 637
MY (25)
[1963] 1 MLJ 263 [1972] 1 MLJ 122 [1979] 2 MLJ 304 [1987] 1 CLJ 250 [1987] 1 MLJ 492 [1988] 1 CLJ 283 [1988] 2 MLJ 53 [1996] 3 MLJ 560 [1997] 1 CLJ 233 [1998] 4 CLJ 655 [1998] 4 MLJ 697 [2009] 1 CLJ 717 [2009] 2 CLJ 800 [2010] 1 MLJ 741 [2013] 1 CLJ 632 [2013] 1 MLJ 342 [2014] 4 CLJ 406 [2016] 2 CLJ 247 [2017] 1 CLJ 617 [2019] 5 CLJ 23 [2019] 5 CLJ 93 [2019] 7 CLJ 27 [2019] MLJU 00282 [2022] 1 CLJ 491 [2022] 3 CLJ 230