Pendakwa Raya v MOHAMMAD ZULFAHMI BIN MAHMUD

Case Significance

Illustrates that internal inconsistency in the prosecution's own arrest documentation can raise a reasonable doubt sufficient to rebut the section 39B trafficking presumption and secure an acquittal.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar, Kedah concerns a charge of drug trafficking brought by the Pendakwa Raya (the Public Prosecutor) under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under section 39B(2). The accused was alleged to have trafficked 146.8 grams of methamphetamine at the roadside in Kampung Lengkuas, Bukit Pinang. At the close of the prosecution case the court found that a prima facie case had been made out and ordered the accused to enter a defence. The accused elected to give evidence on oath and called three defence witnesses, including a friend arrested in similar circumstances and an advocate who photographed the scene. The central question at the close of the whole case was whether the defence had raised a reasonable doubt on the elements of possession and knowledge and had rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking. The court's analysis turned on a striking evidential feature: the prosecution's own exhibits showed that the arrest reports for the accused and for the friend recorded near-identical circumstances, so much so that the court described them as seolah-olah laporan copy n paste (as though they were copy-and-paste reports), which cast doubt on the accused's guilt. Applying the settled reasonable-doubt test rather than a "believable and convincing" standard, the court held that even though the defence account was not entirely convincing, the prosecution's own evidence raised a reasonable doubt. The court therefore held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered the accused dilepas dan dibebaskan (discharged and acquitted) of the charge. The prosecution, dissatisfied, indicated an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of how internal inconsistency in the prosecution's own arrest documentation can be enough to defeat a trafficking presumption.