[Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] v MOHD YUSRI BIN JUSOH (WA-45A-66-06/2022)

The existence of Yo remains uncorroborated. No independent witnesses i.e. neighbours or employers or documentary evidence in the form of rental agreement or phone logs were produced to verify his identity. Furthermore, the claim that the accused, a stable provider earning up to RM9,000 per month would rent out a room in a small apartment shared with his wife and four children is logically inconsistent and deemed a fabricated excuse.

(ii) The accused admitted to having full access to the car and spare keys even when Yo purportedly used it. As an experienced 37-year-old salesman, his claim of ignorance while handling heavy sacks is implausible. Applying the doctrine of wilful blindness, even if the accused had suspicions and chose not to investigate, he is held to have actual knowledge.

(iii) For completeness, wilful blindness is the principle that a person cannot escape criminal liability by deliberately shutting his eyes to the obvious. In the context of section 39B of the DDA, it serves a bridge between suspicion and actual knowledge. To convict for an offence of drug trafficking, the prosecution must prove the accused had knowledge of the nature of the drugs. Wilful blindness applies when the accused had clear suspicion that something illegal was occurring i.e. transporting heavy mystery gunny sacks. The accused deliberately chose not to inquire or investigate further because he preferred to remain ignorant to avoid trouble. Under the law, this deliberate ignorance is viewed as the equivalent of actual knowledge.

(iv) The court found the accused’s defence, that he was merely helping Yo with sacks as heavy as books, to be logically inconsistent with his profile. The court noted that a 37-year-old man with a background in sales is expected to possess a higher degree of commercial awareness. It is implausible that such an individual would load massive sacks into his own private vehicle without once questioning the contents, the origin, or the destination.

The sheer weight and size of 47,726.9 grams of cannabis make the ignorance defence unsustainable. Handling such load requires significant physical effort, providing ample opportunity to realize the nature of the goods. As a matter of common sense, the larger the quantity of drugs, the stronger the inference that it was not intended for personal consumption. (See Ong Ah Chuan v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 64).

(vi) The Federal Court in Tan Ah Tee [1980] 1 MLJ 49, established a critical benchmark that a person who is directly involved in carrying or handling a container containing drugs cannot claim ignorance of its contents unless there is clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, which is not available in the present case. By applying this, this court ruled that since the accused had full physical control over the loading and transporting and no evidence existed to prove he was misled, his failure to check the sacks constituted wilful blindness.

(vii) The accused tried to argue he was a mere transporter. However, the doctrine of wilful blindness ensures that even a courier is held liable if he turns a blind eye to the cargo he is moving. By choosing not to open the sacks or ask Yo for details, the accused effectively accepted the risk, which the law treats as having the requisite mens rea.

(viii) The doctrine of wilful blindness is the legal mechanism used to defeat the I didn’t know defence when the circumstances of the case scream otherwise. Under the law, it is the final nail in the coffin for an accused who claims to be an innocent carrier.

(ix) Wilful blindness is not merely negligence or stupidity but a specific state of mind where the accused, like in the present case, has his suspicion aroused by the facts, which is the subjective element but deliberately refrains from making inquiries to remain in a state of ignorance, which is the intentional element. To reiterate, in the eyes of the law, as established in the case of Tan Ah Tee, this deliberate shutting of one’s eyes is the legal equivalent of actual knowledge.

This court has applied this doctrine by looking at the objective indicators present in the case that should have alerted the accused, as follows: o The accused was transporting 47.7 kg of cannabis. This is not a small parcel that could be mistaken for a gift; these were large and heavy gunny sacks. (See CCTV recording P72). The physical effort required to load these into a Toyota Alza makes the claim of not knowing or not suspecting a contraband nature to be logically unsustainable. o The accused as an experienced salesman, is expected to have a higher degree of street smart and commercial prudence. Handling mystery gunny sacks for a third party (see P27, P29, P31), Yo without a single question violates the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable person in his position. o The accused’s affinity for superbikes, as established during cross-examination indicates a lifestyle of considerable expense. In the witness box, his demeanour was notably sheepish. I find that he was largely evasive when questioned about the source of his funds for such luxury acquisitions. o The accused’s evasive demeanour regarding the source of his wealth further undermines his credibility. Consequently, his claim of ignorance regarding the contents of the gunny sacks is found to be implausible and inconsistent with his conduct. o The accused’s own testimony that the sacks were as heavy as books proves he handled them enough to gauge their weight. By his own admission, he did not open them or ask for a detailed description. This deliberate inaction is the core of wilful blindness.

(xi) The principles regarding the innocent carrier defence continue to be refined by recent authorities, notably Maria Elvira Pinto Exposto v PP [2020] 5 CLJ 1 FC. While the court may, in specific circumstances, accept such a defence, it generally mandates that the accused demonstrate he took reasonable measures to verify the nature of the cargo. The facts of the present case, however, necessitate the application of the doctrine of wilful blindness. By ignoring the suspicious nature of the heavy gunny sacks being loaded into his vehicle, over which he maintained exclusive physical control and access, the accused deliberately closed his eyes to the obvious.

(xii) Given that he exercised full physical control, physically loading the vehicle and possessing the keys and access cards, the onus to verify that the goods were not illicit was at its peak. His failure to do so transitioned his state of mind from innocence to wilfully blind. Conclusion [8] In sum total, the defence story is viewed as an afterthought. The accused failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities. The large quantity of drugs found in his exclusive possession confirms his intent to traffic. (See again the case of Ong Ah Chuan v PP). [9] The prosecution has proven the charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is thus found guilty and convicted of the charge under section 39B (1) (a) of the DDA punishable under section 39B (2) of the DDA. Plea in Mitigation and Sentence [10] The court then proceeded to hear his plea in mitigation as well as submission on the aggravating factors by the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP). Essentially, it is as follows: Untuk Hukuman Rayuan untuk Peringanan Hukuman PB

Faktor Mitigasi Budibicara - hukuman mati atau penjara sehingga 30 tahun dan 12 sebatan.

Mohon hukuman pemenjaraan adalah padan.

Kes MR dirujuk - yang dipilih adalah hukuman pemenjaraan.

Ganja - adalah soft drug

Pesalah kali pertama.

Dalam kes Eric Bong - tidak ada sindekat yang terlibat.

OKT - 38 tahun

Sudah kahwin - anak 4 orang

Tiada sabitan lampau.

Tarikh tangkap - 17.11.2021.

Clean record.

Kepentingan awam - tidak terjejas - sekiranya pemenjaraan diperintahkan.

Mohon budibicara - untuk hukuman pemenjaraan.

TPR Kuantiti dadah - Hampir 48 kg.

Serah kepada budibicara mahkamah - untuk "appropriate sentence".

OKT Saya mohon - hukuman pemenjaraan.

Saya mempunyai keluarga - isteri dan anak.

Mohon hukuman yang setimpal. Mahkamah Setelah mengambil kira faktor-faktor mitigasi serta faktor "aggravating" serta "Nature of offence and weight of the drugs involved", Mahkamah memerintahkan hukuman pemenjaraan selama 30 tahun bermula dari tarikh tangkap (17.11.2021) dan 12 kali sebatan seperti yang diperuntukan oleh undang-undang. Barang-barang kes kepada pihak pendakwaan untuk pelupusan. [11] Decision to impose thirty years imprisonment and corporal punishment is a proportionate response to the gravity of the drug trafficking offence. This heinous crime undermines the peace and stability of Malaysian society. The primary concern remains the catastrophic consequences that would have occurred had these substances entered circulation, particularly regarding its devastating effect on our youth. Accused convicted and sentenced. Dated 23 March 2026 SGD Muniandy Kannyappan Judge, High Court 2 (Criminal) Kuala Lumpur. Parties For and on behalf of the Prosecution – DPP Aqilah Ishak and DPP Izalina Hj Abdullah of the Attorney General Chambers. For the Accused – DC Naizatul Zamrina bte Karizaman with DC Dzuriyah Velayit Hussein of Messrs. KL Chee & Co.