Pendakwa Raya v MOHAMAD HAFIZI BIN SAAD
12 cases cited
(0 SG, 12 foreign)
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the learned Magistrate dated 25.6.2025 in Case No. JA-82D-19- 05/2023, acquitting and discharging the Respondent, Mohd Hafizi bin Saad, on the charge under section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, without calling upon him to enter his defence, is affirmed.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs – Self-administration of dangerous drugs – Charge under s. 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA 1952") – "Arrested person" requirement under s. 31A DDA 1952 – Whether accused must be an arrested person before urine sample may lawfully be required under s. 31A(1A) DDA 1952 – Whether arrest precedes or follows preliminary urine screening – Whether detention for enquiry or compliance with direction to provide urine sample constitutes arrest – Whether nodding in understanding when directed to provide urine sample amounts to constructive arrest – Whether question of arrest determined by particular facts and circumstances of each case – Whether breach of s. 31A(1A) DDA 1952 renders urine sample evidence inadmissible – Whether common law admission principles can overcome breach of statutory procedural requirement – Supremacy of Federal Constitution – Whether statutory procedure must be meticulously followed – Whether breach of s. 31A(1A) is mere technicality curable by common law – Whether statutory presumption under s. 37(k) DDA 1952 available where s. 31A not complied with – Articles 5 and 8 Federal Constitution – Equal protection of law irrespective of rank or status of accused CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prima facie case – Standard at close of prosecution case – Whether prosecution evidence sufficient to convict accused if he elects to remain silent – Whether reasonable doubt at close of prosecution case precludes finding of prima facie case – Chain of evidence – Identity of urine bottle – Whether discrepancies in volume of urine sample between collection and analysis undermine chain of custody – Whether conflicting evidence as to application of seal on urine bottle raises doubt as to integrity of exhibit – Whether discrepancy between preliminary screening result and pathology confirmation result is material – Whether prosecution bears burden of explaining discrepancy in drug types detected at different testing stages – Credibility of prosecution witnesses – Whether inconsistent spelling of officer's own name across contemporaneous official documents constitutes material inconsistency – Whether directly conflicting testimonies of prosecution witnesses as to physical positions during urine screening are reconcilable – Whether cumulative evidentiary deficiencies satisfy the destructive character test – Appellate intervention – Whether appellate court should disturb trial court's findings of fact and credibility – Whether findings of trial court were open to it on maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (12)
UK (1)
[1955] AC 197
MY (11)
[1964] MLJ 81 [2003] 1 CLJ 734 [2005] 1 CLJ 85 [2009] 3 CLJ 430 [2010] 2 MLJ 771 [2017] 1 CLJ 617 [2017] 7 CLJ 685 [2019] 3 CLJ 318 [2023] 2 CLJ 714 [2023] 8 CLJ 951 [2025] MLJU 2056
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ja-41lb-3-06-2025)