MAT AZAM BIN NASIR v Pendakwa Raya
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (3)
Counsel (4)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
A Court of Appeal decision affirming a section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 trafficking conviction founded on common intention, and illustrating that sentencing for such offences now engages judicial discretion following the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023.
This Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal by the first accused against both his conviction and sentence for drug trafficking, heard together with a co-accused's appeal against conviction. The two accused had been jointly charged, in furtherance of a common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code, with trafficking in 153.3 grams of heroin, an offence under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952) punishable under section 39B(2). After a full trial, the High Court at Johor Bahru convicted both accused on the amended charge and, on 25 March 2025, sentenced each to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life, fixed at 30 years from the date of arrest on 13 July 2018, together with 12 strokes of the cane. The first accused, dissatisfied with the whole of that decision, appealed against conviction and sentence, while the co-accused confined his appeal to conviction. On the conviction, the defence contended that a prosecution witness had acted as an agent provocateur under section 40A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, that an adverse inference should be drawn under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 for the alleged suppression of material documentary evidence such as CCTV footage and telephone records, and that the arrangement was a negotiated sale in which the accused was an innocent carrier lacking the custody, control and knowledge required for trafficking. The Court held that the totality of the evidence supported the inference of a common intention and that the defence had failed to raise any reasonable doubt, and it unanimously affirmed the conviction as safe. On sentence, the Court noted that, following the coming into force of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 on 4 July 2023, it was open to the court to consider a range of factors in the exercise of its sentencing discretion.
Summary
Two co-accused (Mat Azam and Navindrahkumar) were convicted of jointly trafficking 153.3g of heroin at Taman Setia Tropika, Johor Bahru, following an agent provocateur operation. The key issues included the credibility of the agent provocateur's evidence, the chain of evidence, and the common intention between the accused. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed both appeals against conviction and maintained the sentence of life imprisonment (30 years) and 12 strokes of the cane.
What was the outcome of the first accused's appeal against conviction and sentence?
The Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the conviction under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, read with section 34 of the Penal Code, as safe, holding that the defence had raised no reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. The High Court had sentenced each accused to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life, fixed at 30 years from the date of arrest, with 12 strokes of the cane, and the Court addressed sentence in light of the discretion introduced by the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023.
How did the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 bear on sentencing?
The Court noted that, following the Act's coming into force on 4 July 2023, the previously mandatory penalty no longer applied and it was open to the court to weigh a range of factors in exercising its sentencing discretion for the section 39B(1)(a) trafficking offence, rather than being confined to a single fixed sentence.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (42)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (j-05sh-152-04-2025)