Ahmad Farizul Bin Ismail v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the dividing line between mere preparation and a punishable attempt to traffic in dangerous drugs under section 33 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, holding that producing a matching airway bill, stating the purpose of collection and taking every step short of receiving the parcel manifest the intent and substantial steps required for an attempt.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns the offence of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug under section 33 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and what conduct is sufficient to constitute such an attempt. The appellant had gone to collect a parcel, and the question was whether his conduct amounted to more than mere preparation, so as to constitute an attempt to traffic. The Court set out the principle that, to be guilty of an attempt, an accused must have performed sufficient acts that manifest both the required intent and the taking of substantial steps towards the commission of the offence, rather than acts that are merely preparatory. Applying that test to the facts, the Court held that the appellant's conduct in attempting to collect the parcel fell clearly within the various acts encompassed by the concept of trafficking under the Act. The evidence was that the appellant had brought with him a printed airway bill, which he handed over to a prosecution witness, stating that he was there to receive and collect the parcel on someone else's behalf; that the airway bill bore the same tracking number as the parcel in question; and that he had taken all the necessary steps to procure the parcel, until he abruptly left the premises after answering a telephone call. The Court considered that this combination of conduct, in particular the production of the matching airway bill, the express statement of purpose and the taking of every step short of physically receiving the parcel, went well beyond preparation and manifested both the intent and the substantial steps required for an attempt. It concluded that the acts constituted an attempt to traffic within section 33. The judgment is a useful illustration of the dividing line between mere preparation and a punishable attempt to traffic in dangerous drugs, and of the significance of documentary and conduct evidence in establishing that line has been crossed.