H.T. Low (Petaling Jaya)

On the court record

The firm's record concentrates on the knowledge and control ingredients and the section 37(da) presumption of trafficking that decide a capital drug appeal, together with the evidential treatment of an accused's conduct after arrest.

H.T. Low (Petaling Jaya) appears in the corpus as appellate counsel in dangerous-drugs prosecutions, acting for appellants before the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) in an appeal against conviction and sentence, argued in Bahasa Malaysia.

The firm's reported work concerns a connected appeal against convictions under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), read with a charge under seksyen 12(2) of the same Act and charges under sections 9(1) and 30(3) of the Poisons Act 1952. The appeal engaged the core ingredients of a trafficking offence, namely kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan (control, custody and knowledge) of the drugs, in a case the court described as one of overwhelming evidence (keterangan melimpah ruah), where the appellant had access to the scene, DNA was found there, and the defence amounted to a bare denial (penafian) and an afterthought (pemikiran terkemudian).

The appeal also engaged the appellant's conduct after arrest as relevant evidence under sections 8 and 9 of the Evidence Act 1950, the countervailing inference under section 114(g), and the statutory presumption of trafficking under seksyen 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. These are the recurring pillars of a capital drug appeal, in which the contest turns less on whether the drugs were present than on whether the accused had the requisite knowledge and control and whether the statutory presumptions were correctly applied against him.

The accused is referred to here by his procedural role. The firm's record is a focused criminal-appellate practice in capital drug matters, in which the appellant's knowledge and the operation of the trafficking presumption are the decisive questions, conducted in Bahasa Malaysia before the Court of Appeal. Even where the prosecution's evidence is strong, the appellate task remains to test whether the trial court correctly found the mental element of possession and properly applied the statutory presumptions rather than simply inferring guilt from proximity and the presence of the drugs, and it is to that careful re-examination of the trial judge's reasoning that the firm's advocacy is directed.