Low Huy Theng

On the court record

Low Huy Theng appears in the corpus as an appellate criminal defence advocate in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), in a group of related appeals arising from a single prosecution and heard together. Appearing for the appellant, the appeals concerned a set of charges under the drug and poisons legislation: trafficking in dangerous drugs under 'seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952' (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under section 39B(2); possession under section 12(2), punishable under section 12(3); and offences under sections 9(1) and 30(3) of the Poisons Act 1952 (Akta Racun 1952), punishable under sections 32(3) and 32(5). The contest was over 'kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan' (control, custody and knowledge), where the prosecution relied on what the court described as 'keterangan melimpah ruah' (overwhelming evidence), including the accused's access to the scene and the discovery of DNA at the scene, while the defence was characterised as a 'penafian' (bare denial) and 'pemikiran terkemudian' (afterthought). The appeals engaged the accused's conduct after arrest, sections 8 and 9 of the Evidence Act 1950 governing conduct and relevant facts, and the adverse inference under 'seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950' (section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950), together with the statutory presumptions in the drug legislation. Because the appeals arose from the same facts and were heard together, they constitute a single sustained appellate challenge in a serious drug and poisons prosecution, fought on control, custody and knowledge, on the strength of the scientific and circumstantial evidence, and on the treatment of the accused's denial. The presence of DNA evidence linking the accused to the scene made the appeal a demanding one for the defence, since it strengthened the prosecution case on knowledge and control and left the argument to focus on the integrity of that evidence and on whether the surrounding circumstances truly excluded access by others. The profile is that of defence counsel engaged at the appellate tier of grave narcotics work, where control, custody and knowledge, scientific evidence and the statutory presumptions are the decisive battlegrounds.