Muhd Farez Bin Hilmi v Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA]

Case Significance

Scrutinises discrepancies between initial screening and confirmatory pathology drug-testing evidence in a section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 self-administration prosecution, holding that an unexplained discrepancy could not be brushed aside by an unsubstantiated prosecutorial assertion that the same drug type was involved.

This High Court (Shah Alam, Appellate Jurisdiction) decision is a criminal appeal from the Magistrates' Court concerning a conviction for self-administration of a dangerous drug. For the purposes of the appeal the court referred to the parties as they had been before the Magistrates' Court. The charge alleged that on 27 August 2019 at a traffic investigation and enforcement office in the Hulu Langat district of Selangor, the accused had used a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine, an offence under seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under section 15 of that Act, carrying a fine of not more than RM5,000 or imprisonment of not more than two years and supervision of up to three years. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, and at the close of the prosecution case the Magistrate found that the prosecution had established its case.

The grounds of appeal concerned whether the Magistrate had erred in holding that the prosecution had proven a prima facie case where there were discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence — specifically, a discrepancy between the pathology report and the exhibits and charge, and a discrepancy between the type of drug found in the appellant's urine during the initial screening test and the pathology report.

The court examined the treatment of those discrepancies. It noted that the Magistrate had not given reasons on the discrepancy, stating instead that the court did not wish to elaborate further on the issues raised by defence counsel, and had found that the issues raised had been answered by the prosecution witnesses. The court was critical of the Deputy Public Prosecutor's written submission that the discrepancy between the screening result of one officer and the laboratory test of another was not critical because it involved the same type of drug, namely an amphetamine-type stimulant, holding that such an assertion, without justification, could not be accepted, and observing that the Deputy Public Prosecutor was not an expert competent to draw such a conclusion, so that the explanation for the discrepancy ought to have been properly established. The judgment illustrates the scrutiny of discrepancies between screening and confirmatory drug-testing evidence in a prosecution for self-administration under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.