MOHD MUSNIZAM BIN MUSA v Pendakwa Raya
Outcome
Maka, rayuan Perayu atas hukuman juga dengan ini adalah ditolak. KESIMPULAN [41] Oleh itu, kami sebulat suara membenarkan rayuan Perayu dalam Rayuan No. 650. Keputusan YA.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
A statement of appellate restraint in drug prosecutions: a conviction supported by custody and control of the location where drugs are found will not be disturbed merely because forensic links such as DNA are absent, and a bare-denial defence does not raise a reasonable doubt.
This Court of Appeal judgment records the disposal of two criminal appeals heard together, and this record relates to the second of them, Rayuan No. 9, in which the same appellant challenged his conviction and sentence on drug charges tried in the High Court at Johor Bahru. In Rayuan No. 9 he had been convicted of trafficking 151.68 grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and of possessing 5.12 grams of heroin under section 12(2). The companion appeal, Rayuan No. 650, concerned three further charges arising from a separate trial. Among the issues canvassed were the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da)(xvi) of the Act, the appellant's asserted power to deal with the drugs as owner — the drugs having been recovered on his own directions and the key to the room in which they were found being on him — and the prosecution's failure to call or offer to the defence a companion arrested with him, said to engage an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950. The court also addressed the argument that the absence of the appellant's DNA on the drugs weakened the case, holding that it did not, and that a defence amounting to bare denial was insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. Applying the settled principle that an appellate court will not intervene unless the trial court was plainly wrong or had failed to give sufficient judicial appreciation to the evidence, the court dismissed Rayuan No. 9 and affirmed both conviction and sentence, noting that the sentences represented the minimum the law prescribed for the offences. The judgment is a useful statement of appellate restraint in drug cases and of the limited weight to be given to the absence of forensic links where possession and control are otherwise established.
Summary
The appellant faced two sets of drug trafficking and possession appeals heard together involving methamphetamine, heroin and monoacetylmorphine found at two separate locations. The key issues included adverse inference under s.114(g) for failing to call a co-suspect, the absence of the appellant's DNA on the drugs, and the sufficiency of pointing-out evidence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal for one set of charges (Rayuan 650) due to prosecution failings but dismissed the other (Rayuan 9), affirming life imprisonment.
What was the outcome of Rayuan No. 9?
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed both the conviction and the sentence, observing that the sentences imposed were the minimum provided by law for the offences charged.
Did the absence of the appellant's DNA on the drugs assist him?
No. The court held that the absence of the appellant's DNA on the recovered drugs did not weaken the prosecution's case, and that a defence amounting to bare denial was insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt where possession and control were otherwise established.
Cases Cited (15)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (j-05sh-9-01-2024)