Pendakwa Raya v MOHD NAJIB BIN MOHAMED SIDEK
ja-41lba-3-06-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 28 January 2026 • JA-41LB(A)-3-06/2025 • 34 min read
8 cases cited
(0 SG, 8 foreign)
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous drugs – Self-administration of dangerous drug – Charge under s. 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Urine specimen tested positive for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine – Whether prosecution established prima facie case at close of prosecution case CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Urine specimen – Lawfulness of taking under s. 31A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Whether prior arrest for DDA offence is a precondition to lawful demand for urine specimen under s. 31A(1) and s. 31A(1A) – Whether "arrested person" within s. 31A confined to person arrested for offence under the DDA – Whether arrest by Commercial Crime Division for commercial offence constitutes arrest for purposes of s. 31A – Constructive arrest – Mode of arrest – Whether restriction of freedom of movement amounts to arrest for purposes of s. 31A – Whether doctrine of constructive arrest applicable where police possessed no prior drug-related intelligence concerning accused – Rank of police officer – Whether officer held rank of Sergeant at material time – Whether prefix "D/" denotes role designation of Detective and not a separate rank – Whether discrepancies in documentary record as to rank of arresting officer give rise to reasonable doubt as to authority to require urine specimen under s. 31A(1A) EVIDENCE: Illegally obtained evidence – Urine specimen and laboratory report obtained in breach of s. 31A(1A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Whether common law discretion to admit illegally obtained evidence applicable where statute prescribes specific mandatory procedure – Whether breach of s. 31A(1A) renders urine specimen inadmissible – Statutory presumption under s. 37(k) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Whether presumption of self-administration available where urine test not conducted in compliance with s. 31A – Whether exclusion of urine specimen and laboratory report fatal to establishment of prima facie case CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appellate standard – Appeal against acquittal and discharge at close of prosecution case – Whether appellate court will interfere unless decision of trial court "plainly wrong or against weight of objective evidence" – Prima facie case – Whether evidence sufficient to convict if accused elects to remain silent – Stare decisis – Whether lower court bound by Court of Appeal authority where facts of decided cases are materially distinguishable
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (8)
UK (1)
[2009] 3 All ER 14
MY (7)
[2010] 9 CLJ 785 [2013] 6 CLJ 98 [2017] 5 MLJ 255 [2017] 7 CLJ 685 [2018] 5 MLJ 220 [2023] 2 CLJ 714 [2023] MLJU 2272
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ja-41lba-3-06-2025)