AHWAZ BIN ABDUL RANI v Pendakwa Raya [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]

Case Significance

Confirms that a conviction for self-administration of a drug under section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 will stand where the urine test complied with section 31A, the section 37(k) presumption was properly invoked, and the accused failed to rebut it.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is an appeal against conviction and sentence for self-administration of a dangerous drug, and it turns on the lawfulness of the arrest and the statutory presumption arising from a urine test. The accused had been charged under section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 with having introduced a dangerous drug, methamphetamine, into his own body, the offence being detected at a narcotics investigation office, and had been convicted by the Magistrate at Ampang and sentenced to a fine of RM5,000, in default eight months' imprisonment, together with two years' supervision. He appealed. The principal issues were whether the accused had been arrested before he gave his urine specimen, whether there had been an arrest within the meaning of section 31(1) of the Act, and whether the presumption under section 37(k) had been legally invoked.

The court examined the arrest and testing process against the statutory scheme. On the arrest question it followed Court of Appeal authority, holding itself bound by stare decisis where the facts and law were similar, that the power of arrest is prescribed by section 31(1) of the Act. On the presumption, it held that the Magistrate had correctly invoked the presumption under section 37(k), because the undisputed evidence showed that the urine screening had been carried out in compliance with section 31A of the Act. The accused had failed to rebut the presumption and had adduced no evidence to displace it.

The court held that the sentence of a RM5,000 fine, eight months' imprisonment in default and two years' supervision properly reflected the relevant sentencing considerations and was proportionate and fair, and it found no basis to disturb the Magistrate's decision. The judgment illustrates that a conviction for self-administration under section 15(1)(a) will stand where the urine test complied with section 31A, the section 37(k) presumption was properly invoked, and the accused failed to rebut it.