1. ) RAMACHANDRAN A/L VERASAMY 2. ) KELANA BIN YUNUS v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates appellate restraint in drug-trafficking appeals: an appeal against conviction and sentence under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 will be dismissed where the appellants show no appealable error and fail to raise a reasonable doubt, even on grounds of possession, an adverse presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, third-party DNA, and alleged defence-counsel incompetence.

This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya, delivered in a judgment by Noorin binti Badaruddin JCA (sitting with Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim and Azman Abdullah JJCA), concerns a rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman (an appeal against conviction and sentence) by two appellants convicted of drug trafficking. The two appellants had been charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), their two charges tried together at the Penang High Court, where both were convicted and sentenced. On appeal they raised a series of grounds directed at the safety of the conviction, including whether the prosecution had proved the first appellant's possession of and knowledge of the drugs (the second appellant having asserted that the first appellant did not live at the premises), whether the trial judge ought to have drawn an adverse presumption under seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 (section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950) for failure to call a material witness, the presence of another individual's DNA at the scene, and an allegation that the appellants had been prejudiced by the conduct of their defence counsel at trial.

The Court of Appeal rejected each ground. It held unanimously that there was no appealable error by the learned trial judge that would justify appellate intervention, and that it found no reason to disturb the judge's findings on any of the issues raised. The appellants had failed to raise a reasonable doubt over the prosecution case, and the conviction returned by the High Court was, in the court's assessment, safe. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court. The judgment illustrates the restraint an appellate court exercises before disturbing concurrent findings of fact in a drug-trafficking conviction, and the demanding standard a convicted appellant must meet to show an appealable error.