Pendakwa Raya v MUHAMMAD SHAFI BIN RASHIDI

Case Significance

Illustrates the treatment of a bare-denial defence once a prima facie trafficking case is established, and the exercise of the sentencing discretion introduced by Act 846 in 2023, under which a court may choose between the death penalty and life imprisonment with whipping for an offence under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

This High Court trial at Sungai Petani, Kedah, concerned three charges of drug trafficking brought against a single accused under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The charges arose from a raid in the district of Yan in February 2019 and concerned, respectively, 156.65 grams of heroin, 432.68 grams of monoacetylmorphines, and 1,718.7 grams of methamphetamine. The prosecution's case, built on the evidence of the raiding team, was that the accused was connected to the drugs recovered behind a house, the investigation having been led there through the questioning of another person detained earlier. At the close of the case the court found a prima facie case and called on the accused to enter a defence. The court held that the defence amounted to a bare denial that could neither displace the findings of possession and knowledge on the balance of probabilities nor raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. It convicted the accused on the charges. On sentence, the court noted that following the coming into force of Act 846 on 4 July 2023 it now had a full discretion, for an offence under section 39B(1)(a), to impose either the death penalty or life imprisonment together with not fewer than 12 strokes of the rotan. Finding no aggravating factors that would justify a sentence of death, but emphasising that the punishment had to reflect the seriousness of the charges and the public interest, the court declined to impose death and instead sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, recorded as 30 years, from the date of arrest, together with 12 strokes of the rotan. The court also took judicial notice of the prevalence of drug offences, but held that this did not by itself elevate the case to one warranting the ultimate penalty. The judgment illustrates the treatment of a bare-denial defence to a trafficking charge and the exercise of the sentencing discretion introduced by Act 846.