MOHD FIRDAUS BIN ISMAIL v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Instructive on the diminished value of fingerprint evidence where the accused's identity is undisputed and a sale transaction is proved, and on the safety of a section 39B(1)(a) trafficking conviction on appeal.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal against conviction and sentence for drug trafficking, heard jointly with the appeal of a co-accused. The appellant had been charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, punishable under section 39B(2), with trafficking in 5,055.8 grams of cannabis at a car park in Kuala Lumpur, and following a joint hearing of both cases at the High Court under section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he was found guilty, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment from the date of arrest together with 15 strokes of the rotan. On appeal he contended, among other things, that his defence had not been sufficiently considered by the trial judge, that the trial judge had erred, that there was a break in the chain of evidence, and that discrepancies affected the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, so that appellate interference was warranted and the conviction and sentence were unsafe. The court, comprising Haji Azman bin Abdullah, Azmi bin Ariffin and Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz JJCA, dismissed the appeal. On the significance of fingerprint evidence, the court applied PP v Mansor Md Rashid & Anor, observing that fingerprint evidence assumes great value where the identity of a culprit is in question, but that here the charge alleged trafficking in the form of a sale and there was evidence indicating the identities of the alleged offenders and the sale transaction, so that the absence of fingerprints on the wrappings assumed little value; likewise, since the appellant's identity was undisputed, confirmatory evidence about the keys was at most merely corroborative. Finding no appealable error in the High Court judge's decision and no reason to interfere with the findings of fact leading to the conviction, the court was satisfied that the conviction was safe, unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal and also dismissed the prosecution's cross-appeal. The judgment is instructive on the value of fingerprint evidence where identity is not in dispute and on the safety of a trafficking conviction on appeal.