rayuan jenayah no: q-05-146-2006 antara pendakwa raya

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14 the ingredient of trafficking is a totally different matter. The learned DPP in her written submission picked out keeping, concealing and storing in order to bring the respondent squarely within s. 2 of the Act. The definition of trafficking reads thus: “trafficking” includes the doing of any of the following acts, that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping, concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing, administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering, procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the regulations, made under the Act; ” Without the need of repeating any previous discourse of this section, what needs to be repeated are the established enunciations by recent authorities, which demand something more than passive possession before the ingredient of trafficking is said to have been established. In Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64 Lord Diplock when defining ‘traffic’ said: “To traffic” in a controlled drug so as to constitute the offence of trafficking under section 3 involves something more that passive possession or self- administration of the drug; it involves doing or offering to do an overt act of one or other of the kinds specified in paragraph (a) of the definition of “traffic” and “trafficking” in section 2. Even apart from any statutory definition, the ordinary meaning of the verb “to traffic”, in the particular context of
trafficking in goods of any kind, imports the existence, either in fact or in contemplation, of at least two parties: a supplier and a person to whom the goods are to be supplied. This concept, involving transfer of possession, is reflected in the statutory definition itself.... “This is a very wide description of acts that may be treated as equivalent to the substantive offence of trafficking; nevertheless, in their Lordships’ view, it is clear from the structure of the Drugs Act and the distinction drawn between the offence of having a controlled drug in one’s possession and the offence of trafficking in it, that mere possession of itself is not to be treated as an act preparatory to or in furtherance of or for the purpose of trafficking so as to permit the conviction of the possessor of the substantive offence. To bring the provisions of sections 10 and 3(c) into operation some further step or overt act by the accused is needed, directed to transferring possession of the drug to some other 15 person...(emphasis supplied)” Augustine Paul J in PP v Mohd Farid bin Mohd Sukis & Anor [2002] 3 MLJ 401 referring to the above case endorsed the existence, either in fact or in contemplation, of at least two parties: a supplier and a person to whom the goods are to be supplied. PP v Abdul Manaf bin Muhammad Hassan [2006] 3 MLJ 193 too had referred and agreed with the above case of Ong Ah Chuan v PP.
Page 1 and 2: DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BID
Page 3 and 4: 3 together with his wife and mother
Page 5 and 6: 5 was some evidence to prove that t
Page 7 and 8: 7 to the discovery of the drugs wer
Page 9 and 10: 9 respondent leading the police to
Page 11 and 12: 11 And then there were the syringes
Page 13: 13 add to the whittling away of the
Page 17 and 18: 17 drugs were recovered in the stor

rayuan jenayah no: q-05-146-2006 antara pendakwa raya

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?