s-05sh-334-08-2022 — Julasiri Bin Akilmara v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

Catchwords

In this appeal, the appellant, Julasiri bin Akilmara, had initially been convicted alongside a co-accused, Aspal, for trafficking 137.03 grams of methamphetamine under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment and caning. While the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s finding that the appellant was in possession of the drugs, it found a significant procedural error regarding the trafficking charge. Specifically, the High Court failed to inform the appellant whether he was required to defend himself against actual trafficking under Section 2 or presumed trafficking under Section 37(da), each of which carries different burdens of proof. Relying on binding precedents such as Bong Sing Seng v PP, the Court held that this omission amounted to a miscarriage of justice because an accused must know the exact nature of the case he needs to answer. As a result, the trafficking conviction was deemed unsafe. Nevertheless, because possession was proven, the Court substituted the trafficking conviction with a conviction for possession under Section 12(2) DDA, punishable under Section 39A(2). The appellant was resentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and exempted from whipping due to his age.

Practice Areas

In this appeal, the appellant, Julasiri bin Akilmara, had initially been convicted alongside a co-accused, Aspal, for trafficking 137.03 grams of methamphetamine under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment and caning. While the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s finding that the appellant was in possession of the drugs, it found a significant procedural error regarding the trafficking charge. Specifically, the High Court failed to inform the appellant whether he was required to defend himself against actual trafficking under Section 2 or presumed trafficking under Section 37(da), each of which carries different burdens of proof. Relying on binding precedents such as Bong Sing Seng v PP, the Court held that this omission amounted to a miscarriage of justice because an accused must know the exact nature of the case he needs to answer. As a result, the trafficking conviction was deemed unsafe. Nevertheless, because possession was proven, the Court substituted the trafficking conviction with a conviction for possession under Section 12(2) DDA, punishable under Section 39A(2). The appellant was resentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and exempted from whipping due to his age.

Judges (3)

Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim Coram Alwi bin Abdul Wahab Coram Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan Delivered

Counsel (3)

Chang & Kamarudin Firm Kamarudin bin Mohamed Chinki Counsel Appellant Mohd Fairuz bin Joharoi Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Julasiri bin Akilmara Appellant

Summary

The appellant was convicted of trafficking 137.03 grams of methamphetamine alongside a co-accused in Semporna and sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes. The Court of Appeal found the trial judge failed to inform the appellant whether he faced actual or presumed trafficking, constituting a miscarriage of justice, and substituted the trafficking conviction with possession under s.12(2) DDA, resentencing him to 12 years' imprisonment with no whipping due to his age.

What was the outcome of Julasiri Bin Akilmara v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]?

<p>The appellant was convicted of trafficking 137.03 grams of methamphetamine alongside a co-accused in Semporna and sentenced to life imprisonment an...

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

s 180

Penal Code (Cap 574)

Cases Cited (2)

MY (2)

[1993] 4 CLJ 201 [2023] 8 CLJ 505