LIM WEI JIE v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Case Significance

Illustrates the appellate treatment of the section 39B trafficking presumption in a large-quantity methamphetamine prosecution, and the limited scope for an appellant who cannot show error in the trial court's findings on possession and the failure to rebut the presumption.

This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya concerns an appeal against a conviction for trafficking a substantial quantity of methamphetamine. The appellant had been charged that, on 29 November 2021 at the roadside near a building on Jalan Segambut in the Sentul district of Kuala Lumpur, he trafficked 3,832.2 grams of methamphetamine, a dangerous drug listed in the First Schedule to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, contrary to seksyen 39B(1)(a) (section 39B(1)(a)) and punishable under section 39B(2) of that Act. At the close of the prosecution case the trial judge in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out and called the appellant to enter his defence, and after evaluating the whole of the evidence convicted him. On appeal the central issues were whether the appellant was in possession of the drug and whether he had displaced the statutory presumption of trafficking that flows from possession of so large a quantity. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking, and that the conviction was safe. It added that even evidence not expressly mentioned in the judgment but adduced at trial had been considered and was too trivial to raise any doubt, and that, no submission having been advanced against the sentence, there was no reason to disturb it. The panel of Che Mohd Ruzima bin Ghazali, Azmi bin Ariffin and Choo Kah Sing JJCA delivered a unanimous decision, the grounds of judgment being given by Choo Kah Sing JCA. The court accordingly affirmed the High Court's decision and ordered that the appeal be dismissed. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the appellate court approaches the trafficking presumption in a large-quantity methamphetamine case, and of the narrow room left to an appellant who cannot show that the trial court's evaluation of possession and the failure to rebut the presumption was wrong.