NIZAMMUL HAYAT BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the operation of the statutory trafficking presumption under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 where the drug weight exceeds the threshold, and confirms that procedural complaints about the caution and defence evidence will not unsettle a conviction where possession is proved and the presumption unrebutted.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal against conviction and sentence for drug trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The appellant had been convicted in the High Court of trafficking in cannabis of a net weight of 320.40 grams, the charge alleging that he was found trafficking the drug at a residential house, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment from the date of his arrest on 29 September 2021 together with twelve strokes of whipping. The prosecution case was that, acting on intelligence, a police team raided the house and recovered the drugs from the appellant's room. On appeal the questions were whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case, whether custody, control and possession had been proved, whether there had been a failure to administer the caution required by section 37B(1)(b) of the Act, and whether the trial judge had erred in rejecting the evidence of the defence witnesses. The Court re-evaluated the evidence and held that possession and control had been made out, that the recovery of the drugs from the appellant's room supported his knowledge, and that any complaint about the caution and the treatment of the defence witnesses did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. Because the weight of the cannabis exceeded the statutory threshold, the presumption of trafficking was properly invoked, and the appellant had failed to rebut it. The Court concluded that the conviction was safe and that the sentence was in accordance with the law, and it was unanimous in dismissing the appeal against both conviction and sentence and affirming the decision of the High Court. The judgment illustrates the appellate approach to challenges to possession and to the statutory trafficking presumption, and confirms that not every procedural complaint about the caution or the handling of defence evidence will unsettle a conviction where the presumption is engaged and unrebutted.