Joon Zheng Han v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the role of the Alcontara notice in a section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 trafficking appeal, and the appellate court's insistence that a third-party defence be both properly raised and factually established before it can raise a reasonable doubt.

This decision of the Court of Appeal at Putrajaya is one of six consolidated appeals against convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, arising from the seizure of a large quantity of methamphetamine in a single operation. Each of the six appellants had been convicted at the High Court at Shah Alam and sentenced to imprisonment for life (30 years) from the date of arrest together with 15 strokes of the rotan. This appeal is that of the fourth appellant, heard with the others because of the common issues they raised on knowledge and the availability of defences.

One of the grounds common to the appeals was whether the Alcontara notice — the requirement, derived from Alcontara a/l Ambrose Anthony v PP, that an accused who intends to rely on a defence implicating a named third party give the prosecution timely notice so that the account can be investigated — had been properly given, and whether the defence had been afforded due consideration. The Court of Appeal examined how the appellants' accounts had been advanced and found that the trial court had in substance given the defences proper consideration, and that any deficiency in the notice given did not undermine the safety of the convictions. Ultimately the appellants had failed to raise a reasonable doubt on knowledge or to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking on the balance of probabilities. Holding that the High Court's evaluation of the evidence was sound and that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the court found no merit in the appeals and declined to interfere. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed. The judgment illustrates the role of the Alcontara notice and the appellate court's insistence that a third-party defence be both properly raised and factually made out.