MUHAMAD SHAM BIN AZEMI v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

w-05m-113-03-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 23 March 2025 • W-05(M)-113-03/2023 • 53 min read

34 cases cited (0 SG, 34 foreign)

Catchwords

Seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – Pemakaian anggapan mengedar menurut Seksyen 37(da)(xvi) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - DNA dan cap jari tertuduh pada dadah hanya bersifat keterangan sokongan – siasatan sambal lewa oleh pihak polis – tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan atau milikan penuh dengan pengetahuan terhadap dadah – kuasa mengendalikan dadah tanpa campur tangan orang lain – pembelaan tertuduh bersifat pemikiran terkemudian (afterthought) – beban pembuktian apabila anggapan statutori beroperasi – common sense approach

Practice Areas

Seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Delivered Azmi bin Ariffin Coram Hashim bin Hamzah Coram

Counsel (4)

Sivananthan Firm Datuk N. Sivananthan Counsel Appellant Eyu Ghim Siang Counsel Prosecution Nabila Habib Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Muhamad Sham bin Azemi Appellant

Case Significance

MUHAMAD SHAM BIN AZEMI v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated March 23, 2025 (citation: w-05m-113-03-2023). <p>The appellant was convicted of two charges of trafficking methamphetamine (1,507.8g and 19,119.6g) found at Ascenda Residence, Setapak, and sentenced to death. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed his appeal against conviction, finding he had possession and knowledge of the drugs and failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking. However, the death sentence was substituted with life imprisonment (30 years from date of arrest) and 12 strokes of whipping.</p> The panel comprised Azman bin Abdullah, Azmi bin Ariffin and Hashim bin Hamzah, with Azman bin Abdullah delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Datuk N. Sivananthan (counsel for appellant), Eyu Ghim Siang (prosecution counsel), Nabila Habib (counsel for appellant).

Summary

The appellant was convicted of two charges of trafficking methamphetamine (1,507.8g and 19,119.6g) found at Ascenda Residence, Setapak, and sentenced to death. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed his appeal against conviction, finding he had possession and knowledge of the drugs and failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking. However, the death sentence was substituted with life imprisonment (30 years from date of arrest) and 12 strokes of whipping.

What was the outcome of MUHAMAD SHAM BIN AZEMI v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan...?

<p>The appellant was convicted of two charges of trafficking methamphetamine (1,507.8g and 19,119.6g) found at Ascenda Residence, Setapak, and sentenc...

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code

s 182A(2)

Drugs Act

s 15

Evidence Act 1950

s 27

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

s 8 s 8(2)

Cases Cited (34)

UK (2)

[1947] 2 All ER 372 [1968] 2 All ER 356

MY (32)

[1948] MLJ 131 [1949] MLJ 54 [1963] 1 MLJ 263 [1968] 1 MLJ 158 [1969] 2 MLJ 89 [1974] 1 MLJ 230 [1980] 2 MLJ 195 [1981] 1 MLJ 64 [1991] 3 MLJ 169 [1995] 1 MLJ 538 [1995] 2 MLJ 433 [1996] MLJU 190 [1997] 1 CLJ 233 [1998] 2 MLJ 337 [2003] 2 MLJ 65 [2005] 6 MLJ 393 [2006] 5 MLJ 415 [2007] 5 CLJ 1 [2008] 6 MLJ 222 [2009] 1 CLJ 717 [2009] 3 MLJ 151 [2011] 4 CLJ 113 [2011] MLJU 1491 [2014] 2 CLJ 12 [2014] 4 CLJ 162 [2015] 3 MLJ 134 [2017] 1 CLJ 575 [2017] MLJU 1792 [2019] 6 MLJ 231 [2020] 3 MLJ 386 [2022] 4 CLJ 1 [2022] 4 MLJ 111