Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) MUHAMAD HAFIS BIN BAKAR 2. ) MOHD ILAIHI BIN BAKHTIAR 3. ) MOHAMAD AMIRUL AIMAN BIN BAKHTIAR

Case Significance

A trafficking conviction founded on the section 37(da) presumption under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, illustrating the prima-facie-to-beyond-reasonable-doubt sequence under section 180(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the consequences of a defence that fails to rebut the presumption.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru sets out the grounds for the conviction and sentence of three accused following a full criminal trial. The accused were jointly charged with two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs under section 39B(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952), which carries the death penalty or imprisonment for life together with 12 strokes of the cane under section 39B(2), the trafficking being founded on the statutory presumption in section 37(da) of the Act. They also faced a further charge of possession of dangerous drugs under section 12(2), punishable under section 12(3). Applying section 180(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court found at the close of the prosecution case that a prima facie case had been made out and called on the accused to enter their defence. At the close of the defence, the Court was satisfied that the defence had failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and had not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of trafficking. The judgment records that the accused were unable to explain the inconsistencies in their evidence, which undermined the credibility of the defence and left the prosecution case standing. The Court accordingly convicted all three accused on the two trafficking charges and sentenced each to imprisonment for life together with 12 strokes of the cane, and on the possession charge sentenced each to one year's imprisonment. One of the trafficking charges concerned cannabis of net weight 919.66 grams. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the accused filed appeals against both conviction and sentence, and because the appeals arose from the same facts, arrest report, scene, exhibits and accused, the Court gave a single set of grounds addressing them together. Those grounds explain why, on the whole of the evidence adduced at both stages of the trial, the Court was satisfied that the prosecution had proved each charge beyond reasonable doubt against all three accused.