Pendakwa Raya v ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABD HAMID

Case Significance

A worked example of a section 39B trafficking conviction resting on possession and the section 37(da)(xvi) presumption, and of the exercise of the post-Act 846 sentencing discretion to impose life imprisonment and whipping rather than the death penalty.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar sets out the reasons for convicting and sentencing the accused for trafficking in dangerous drugs. He had been charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, punishable under section 39B(2), with trafficking 417.78 grams of methamphetamine found in a house at Kampung Baru Paya Mengkuang, Pendang, Kedah. During the raid the drugs were recovered on the mattress on which the accused was lying, and he had tried to flee; the house had only a single door without a knob and was occupied only by the accused and his wife, who gave evidence as a prosecution witness. At the close of the prosecution case the court found that a prima facie case had been made out and called on the accused to enter his defence. He elected to give sworn evidence as the sole defence witness. The court found his account to be contradictory and inconsistent, and held that he had failed both to raise any reasonable doubt and to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da)(xvi) of the Act. It was therefore satisfied that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him. On sentence, the court had regard to the discretion introduced by Act 846, which removed the mandatory death penalty for such offences, and reasoned — drawing on authority emphasising rehabilitation as an object of sentencing — that this was not a case warranting the death penalty. It imposed hukuman penjara seumur hidup (30 tahun) bermula daripada tarikh ditangkap dan 12 sebatan (life imprisonment of thirty years from the date of arrest, together with twelve strokes of the cane). The judgment illustrates how a trafficking conviction turning on possession and a rebuttable presumption is approached, and how the post-Act 846 sentencing discretion is exercised.