Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CRIMINAL LAW – DANGEROUS DRUGS – JUDICIAL SCRUTINY IN DRUG TRAFFICKING CASES: BALANCING DEFENSE ARGUMENTS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

Illustrative Scenario:

Police officers, acting on a tip-off about drug trafficking, conducted a raid at an apartment in Selangor. Posing initially as municipal officers for a mosquito inspection, they gained access to the apartment. Upon being confronted by Chief Inspector TM, the first appellant, a Nigerian male, attempted to close the door but was overpowered by the officers. In the ensuing chaos, he and the second appellant, a South African male, attempted to escape; one via the balcony, and the other was later found hiding in the ceiling. Dangerous drugs were found inside the apartment in a plastic bag.

Issues:

  • Whether the appellants successfully challenged the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da)(iiia) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

Laws & Legal Principles:

  • Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA 1952): Sections concerning trafficking and presumptions related to drug offenses.
    • Section 39 DDA 1952 – Trafficking in dangerous drugs.
    • Section 37 DDA 1952 – Presumption.
  • Penal Code Act 574: Addresses the punishment for offenses committed within Malaysia.
  • Kidnapping Act 1961: Details penalties for abduction and related crimes, emphasizing harsh sentences for ransom-related offenses.
  • Criminal Procedure Code: Section 289(a) provides specific conditions under which sentencing variations can apply.

Application and Sentencing:

The first and second appellants were found guilty and each sentenced to 20 years in prison and 18 strokes of the cane. The third appellant, also sentenced to 20 years, was exempted from caning under section 289(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code due to particular mitigating factors. The severity of the sentences reflects the court’s intent to use these cases as deterrents against similar crimes, especially considering the appellants were first-time offenders and former students in Malaysia.

Reference Cases:

  • Muhammad Isa Bin Aris & Ors v PP [2011] 5 MLJ 342
  • Khairudin Bin Hasan v PP [2010] 6 MLJ 145; [2010] MLJU 648
  • Teh Hock Leng v PP [2010] 1 MLJ 741
  • Mohd Haikal Bin Mohd Khatib Saddaly & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2009] 4 MLJ 305
  • Krishna Rao Gurumurthi v PP & Anor Appeal [2009] 3 MLJ 643
  • Teng Howe Sing v Public Prosecutor [2009] 3 MLJ 46
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us