Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

DANGEROUS DRUGS — TRAFFICKING — EXAMINATION OF DRUG TRAFFICKING CHARGES AND DEFENSE CLAIMSDOUBT — DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT 1952 S 39B

Illustrative Scenario

X was caught with two slabs of plant material in his sling bag, which was later identified as cannabis. X’s defense was that he had no knowledge of the drugs in the bag and claimed that the sling bag did not belong to him. X stated that he picked up the bag from another person named Y.

Issues

  • Whether the possession of the drugs was for the purpose of trafficking?
  • Whether X’s statement and defense successfully raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case?

Legal Principles & Law

  • Section 2 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952: Defines various acts related to dangerous drugs, including manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping, concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing, administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering, procuring, supplying, or distributing any dangerous drug without authority under the Act or its regulations.
  • Section 39B Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs:
    1. (1) No person shall, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, whether or not such other person is in Malaysia—
      (a) Traffic in a dangerous drug;
      (b) Offer to traffic in a dangerous drug; or
      (c) Do or offer to do an act preparatory to or for the purpose of trafficking in a dangerous drug.
    2. (2) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be punished on conviction with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not sentenced to death, be punished with whipping of not less than twelve strokes.
  • Section 8 Evidence Act 1950: Discusses conduct such as absconding or fleeing after the commission of an offence. However, evidence of mere absconding or flight is not a vital circumstance that can be considered to show that the absconder had a guilty mind.

Application and Sentencing

  • The court applied the legal principles to the facts and determined that:
    1. The amount and manner of carrying the cannabis suggested an intent to traffic, as outlined in S.39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
    2. X’s defense of lack of knowledge and ownership was insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, consistent with S.8 of the Evidence Act 1950, which requires credible evidence to support such claims.
  • Consequently, the court found X guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced him to the mandatory penalty of death by hanging.

Reference Cases

  • Zulfikar V PP [2001] 1 SLR 633
  • Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 2 AC 256
  • Tan Ah Tee & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1978-1979] SLR 211
  • Wong Nam Loi v PP [1998] 1 CLJ 37
  • Tunde Apatira & Ors v PP [2001] 1 CLJ 381
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

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

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

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