Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) Jarrod Christian Harry (Meninggal Dunia) 2. ) Noor Sabreena Binti Salleh [Lepas Bebas 18.9.2024] 3. ) FAIZUL AZWAD BIN ABD JALIL 4. ) NORAZHAR BIN MAT 5. ) SITI SAIDA (Lepas bebas 8/8/22 BA-45A-57-04/2021)

Case Significance

Illustrates the handling of a multi-accused section 39B(1)(a) trafficking trial — separating those discharged at each stage — and the calibration of a deterrent sentence to the quantity and type of drug and the offenders' personal circumstances.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is a full criminal trial on charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952), brought by the Public Prosecutor (Pendakwa Raya) against five accused. Because each accused is a natural person named only as a party, this analysis refers to them by role and ordinal position. The first accused had died before trial, and the charge against him was withdrawn with an order of discharge and acquittal; the fifth accused was discharged and acquitted when her representation was accepted by the prosecution. A full trial proceeded against the second, third and fourth accused, and the second accused was discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.

The prosecution's case rested on evidence that one of the accused was seen lifting a box containing drugs and dropping it when police raided, followed by an attempt to flee. The court examined whether the accused had knowledge of the drugs, whether the element of trafficking had been established, and whether the chain of evidence connecting the exhibits had been broken — the defence being a bare denial, which the court had to assess for whether it raised any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950, concerning conduct such as flight, featured in the assessment of knowledge.

On sentence, the court noted the quantity of cannabis involved (some 861.81 grams) and the relative gravity of the drug, and had regard to the range of punishment available, weighing the imprisonment and whipping that the offence attracts. It treated a term of ten strokes of whipping as a sufficiently severe, self-standing deterrent that served the public interest, while also taking into account the background, age and clean records of the accused. The judgment is a useful illustration of how a court handles a multi-accused trafficking trial — separating out those discharged at various stages — and of the calibration of a deterrent sentence to the quantity and type of drug and the personal circumstances of the offenders.