Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) Mr Sah Hanaosuk 2. ) Mr. Sontaya Labaidae

Case Significance

Illustrates the treatment of a frame-up defence in a joint drug-trafficking prosecution under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 34 of the Penal Code: where the defence fails to raise a reasonable doubt, both accused are convicted, and the court here imposed life imprisonment from the date of arrest and 12 strokes on each.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar, Kedah, delivered by Judicial Commissioner Evawani Farisyta binti Mohammad, is the judgment in a full trial of two accused persons jointly charged with drug trafficking. The two accused, both foreign nationals, were charged that on 5 July 2018 at a seafood restaurant in Changloon, in the district of Kubang Pasu, they trafficked together in dangerous drugs, namely methamphetamine of a weight of 762.64 grams, an offence under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) read with seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (section 34 of the Penal Code, common intention). The prosecution case was that the accused had been detained as they entered the restaurant, with the first accused seen holding a white cloth bundle said to contain the drugs.

At the close of the prosecution case the accused were called to enter their defence, and their defence was one of frame-up — that they had been the victims of penganiayaan (persecution or a set-up) engineered by a named individual or by the driver of a blue Honda Accord. The court evaluated that account against the prosecution evidence and was not persuaded by it, finding that the defence had failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the joint possession and trafficking of the drugs. At the close of the defence case the court convicted both accused. Having considered the appropriate sentence, and given the gravity of the offence, it imposed on each accused penjara seumur hidup bermula daripada tarikh ditangkap dan 12 sebatan (life imprisonment commencing from the date of arrest and 12 strokes of the cane), expressing the hope that the sentence would deter the accused and the wider public from involvement in drug crime. The judgment illustrates how a frame-up defence is tested at the close of the defence case in a joint trafficking prosecution and the sentencing outcome where it fails.