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

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »
1 January ,2025 No Comments

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »
1 January ,2025 No Comments

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
1 January ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us