Christopher Benard A/L Antonisamy v Pendakwa Raya (B-05(SH)-452-10/2023)

The appellant was charged with trafficking 305.4 grams of methamphetamine. He was found guilty by the High Court and sentenced to life imprisonment with twelve strokes of the cane. He lodged an appeal against the conviction and sentence.

During the course of this appeal, the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor (‘DPP’) stated that the respondent would not pursue a charge of trafficking and was solely seeking conviction for the offence of possession under Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘DDA 1952'), which is punishable under Section 39A(2) of the same Act. After considering submissions from both parties, we allowed the appeal. The conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court on the appellant were set aside. We found the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 12(2) of the DDA 1952 and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment, commencing from the date of arrest, along with ten strokes of the whip.

The appellant has since appealed solely against the sentence. Our judgment will therefore focus on the sentencing. Brief facts

The amended charge against the appellant reads as follows: "Bahawa kamu pada 15 Februari 2021 jam lebih kurang 9.30 malam bertempat di tepi jalan Sungai Keramat 3, Klang Utama, di dalam daerah Kang di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methaphetamine seberat 305.4 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dibawah Seksyen 39B(1) (a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama”.

The police, based on information, took up position near Jalan Sungai Keramat 3 in Klang at approximately 8.55 p.m. on 15 February 2021. The appellant soon arrived in a gold-coloured Perodua Myvi and pulled over to the side of the road. The police team approached the appellant’s car and identified themselves as police officers. The police searched the appellant and his vehicle. During questioning, the appellant produced a plastic packet containing twenty smaller plastic packets filled with crystalline substances suspected to be dangerous drugs. The Chemist confirmed that the substances weighed 305.4 grams of methamphetamine. The High Court was satisfied that the prosecution had established a prima facie case at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case.

The appellant testified and called two other witnesses for his defence. In essence, the appellant claimed that he was not the owner of the car and that he had borrowed it from a friend named Avin, who worked at a car rental shop. The appellant worked as a tow truck driver and was working on the night of the incident. His wife called and asked him to pick her up from work as her car had broken down. The appellant then called Avin and asked whether he could rent a car for a couple of hours. Avin replied affirmatively and asked the appellant to collect the car from him.

The appellant, however, did not immediately drive to pick up his wife. Instead, he went to meet his friend, Alex, at a workshop near where the police approached him. He had entered the workshop to speak with Alex and intended to leave approximately thirty minutes later. It was at this time that the police ambushed his vehicle. The appellant contended that the police discovered the package containing the drugs at the footrest area of the front passenger seat and that he had informed the police that he was unaware of its ownership, as the car was not his.

The appellant’s wife, in her testimony, corroborated the appellant’s account regarding her request for him to pick her up from work. Avin also testified that he had lent the car to the appellant. However, he stated that he had not inspected the vehicle before transferring it to the appellant.

The High Court held that the appellant had not raised a reasonable doubt and convicted him of the charge. The Court opted to sentence the appellant to life imprisonment and twelve strokes of the whip instead of the death penalty. The sentence

In determining the appropriate sentence, we considered several relevant factors. Drug abuse poses a serious and persistent threat to the community, and the punishment imposed must convey society’s abhorrence of the crime. We also considered the need to deter the appellant and the public, to discourage others from committing the crime. At the same time, the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing cannot be overlooked. A sentence that is unduly brief would not serve this objective. The term of imprisonment must therefore be sufficiently substantial to impress upon the appellant the value of liberty and to encourage him to reform.

Finally, we are mindful of the need to remain within the trend of sentencing to ensure that there is no marked disparity between the sentence passed and cases of a similar nature. We have been ably assisted by the learned DPP, who provided a list of cases decided by this court and the apex court on cases similar to this case. We noted that the trend is toward more than 15 years of imprisonment. We have considered the appellant's status as a first-time offender

We had therefore sentenced the appellant to twelve years imprisonment and ten strokes of the cane, which is the minimum number of strokes required under Section 39A(2) DDA 1951. Dated: 26 November 2025 -sgd- (MOHAMED ZAINI MAZLAN) (JUDGE) COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA Counsel for the Appellant : Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Low Wei Loke, Kee Wei Lon, Siti Summaiyah Ahmad Jaafar & Nur Hafizah Husna Elahab @Lahab Messrs Hisyam Teh Counsel for the Respondent :