Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) AZRIL SANI BIN RAMUDIN 2. ) ASRUL IMRAN BIN ABDULLAH (LISAN) 3. ) MARLINDA KIMPA (LISAN)

Case Significance

Illustrates the distinction between mere residence at premises and proven accessibility and control in a joint drug prosecution, and the application of section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code at the close of trial, where an unproven accessibility element led to acquittal.

This High Court decision in the Criminal Division at Kuala Lumpur concerns a joint drug trial of three accused persons on five framed charges arising from a raid on premises. Four charges were brought against all three accused in furtherance of a common intention, and one further charge was brought against the first and second accused. The charges comprised trafficking in 120.90 grams of methamphetamine punishable under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, possession of 135.3 grams of cannabis under section 39A(2), and possession of 4.52 grams of heroin and 0.33 grams of monoacetylmorphine under section 12(3). At the conclusion of the trial the court was required, under section 182A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to consider the whole of the evidence adduced before deciding whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The pivotal issue was accessibility to the raided premises, that is, whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had access to and control over the place where the drugs were found, rather than merely a residential association with it. The court found that only a residential link had been established at the close of the trial, and that the crucial element of accessibility to the premises had not been proved to the criminal standard. Because a residential link alone could not fix the accused with possession of the drugs in furtherance of any common intention, the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The accused persons were accordingly acquitted and discharged of the charges preferred against them. The judgment is a useful illustration of the distinction between mere residence at premises and proven accessibility and control, and of the application of section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code at the end of a joint drug trial.