P J Perira & Dasan

On the court record

A criminal appellate record in drug-trafficking cases, illustrating how the Court of Appeal may revisit sentence independently of conviction and how section 39B appeals turn on knowledge, possession and statutory presumptions.

P J Perira & Dasan is recorded in the corpus in criminal appellate work, and specifically in drug-trafficking appeals before the Court of Appeal. In one appeal the firm acted for the appellant against a conviction under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, where the arguments pressed included the adequacy of the investigation — the complaint that the alleged real trafficker had not been investigated — whether knowledge of the drugs had been proved, whether the trial court had placed too much weight on the appellant's reaction upon arrest, and whether any gap remained in the prosecution case. A linked pair of appeals arose from the same prosecution and again engaged section 39B: the issues were whether the statutory caution had been administered and understood, whether others had access to the place where the drugs were found, and whether the trial judge had erred by omitting to state, at the close of the prosecution case, whether possession was presumed or actual, together with the appellate court's powers under section 60 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The court's disposition in that matter was recorded verbatim: the appeal against conviction was dismissed, while the appeal against sentence was allowed, the order for five strokes of whipping being set aside and substituted with an order of twelve strokes of whipping. That outcome illustrates the appellate court's willingness to revisit sentence independently of conviction, and the firm's role, on the appellant's side, in mounting the challenge to both. Across these matters the firm is recorded engaged in grave criminal defence at the appellate level, where the arguments turn on knowledge, possession, the conduct of the investigation and the correct treatment of statutory presumptions. In the first appeal the contention that the alleged real trafficker had never been investigated went to whether a gap remained in the prosecution case, a recurring line of challenge in section 39B appeals.