Content
1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA [BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN] MAHKAMAH RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05(M)-193-07/2015(NGA) [PERBICARAAN JENAYAH SELANGOR NO: 45A-186-10/2013] ANTARA DONATUS CHIDERA OKONKWO (W/NIGERIA) …PERAYU [NO. PASSPORT: A02408432] LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA …RESPONDEN KORAM: MOHTARUDDIN BIN BAKI, JCA PRASAD SANDOSHAM ABRAHAM, JCA ABDUL KARIM BIN ABDUL JALIL, JCA Keputusan: 7 November 2016 2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The appellant was charged at the instance of the Public Prosecutor before the High Court of Selangor at Shah Alam and the charge against the appellant is as follows: “Bahawa kamu pada 18 Januari 2013, lebih kurang jam 12.30 tengahari di Cawangan Pemeriksaan Penumpang 1 (CPP 1) Balai Ketibaan Antarabangsa, Aras 3, Bangunan Terminal Utama, Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur (KLIA), di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 2095.5 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama.” [2] The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge proffered against him and claimed trial. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant 3 appealed to us on 1.7.2015, at the end of which we unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the High Court. THE BRIEF OF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE [3] The brief facts are as per the Judgment of the learned trial Judge at page 7, Volume 1 of the Record of Appeal. “Pada 18 Januari 2013 jam lebih kurang 12.30 tengahari, Pegawai Kastam Kanan (PKK) Basar bin Kudin (SP10), yang ketika itu bertugas di Cawangan Pemeriksaan Penumpang 1 (CPP1) telah mengarahkan seorang lelaki (Tertuduh) untuk melakukan imbasan terhadap beg berwarna coklat berjenama Swiss Polo (P7) yang dibawanya. Imbasan telah dilakukan oleh Pegawai Kastam (PiK) Semberati A/P Chandrasegaran (SP9). Hasil imbasan yang dilakukan, telah mendapati imej yang mencurigakan. SP9 telah meminta bantuan SP10 untuk membuat pemeriksaan terhadap beg Tertuduh. Tertuduh telah diarahkan untuk membuka begnya. Tertuduh telah mengeluarkan anak kunci dari poket kiri kotnya dan telah membuka mangga pada begnya. Apabila dibuka terdapat pakaian, beberapa ketulan sabun, beberapa pasang sandal dan dua tin bedak serbuk di dalam beg tersebut. SP10 telah mengarahkan Tertuduh untuk membuat imbasan terhadap satu buku sabun dan mendapati imej yang mencurigakan. SP10 telah mengambil satu buku sabun itu dan telah memotongnya dan mendapati di dalamnya terdapat plastic yang mengandungi serbuk Kristal berwarna putih. 4 Kemudian, SP10 telah memaklumkan berkenaan dengan penahanan itu kepada Pegawai atasannya. SP10 telah membawa Tertuduh dan begnya ke Bilik Pemeriksaan Penumpang CPP1 untuk pemeriksaan lanjut. SP10 telah membuat pemeriksaan lanjut terhadap beg P7 dan telah menjumpai 4 pasang sandal, 19 buku sabun dan 2 tin bedak serbuk di dalam beg Tertuduh. SP10 telah membuat ujian dengan menggunakan test kit terhadap serbuk yang dijumpai di dalam sandal tersebut dan mendapati ia positif dadah jenis Methamphetamine. Penandaan terhadap semua barang kes telah dilakukan olehnya. Seterusnya SP10 telah menyerahkan Tertuduh bersama-sama barang-barang kes kepada Pegawai Penyiasat (SP11). Kesemua barang kes yang dirampas, iaitu 4 pasang sandal, 19 buku sabun dan 2 tin bedak serbuk telah dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia untuk dianalisa oleh Ahli Kimia Kerajaan. Hasil analisa oleh Ahli Kimia (SP8) mengesahkan yang serbuk Kristal yang terkandung di dalam barang kes itu, sebagai dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 2095.5 gram”. AT THE HIGH COURT [4] The learned trial Judge, on a maximum evaluation found that the prosecution had proven a prima facie case against the appellant. His Lordship held at page. 18 of his grounds of judgment: “Setelah saya meneliti keterangan yang disampaikan melalui 11 orang saksi pendakwaan ini, meneliti kepada kedudukan kesemua 40 eksibit yang dikemukakan itu, menimbang kepada penghujahan yang telah 5 disampaikan oleh kedua-dua pihak, menimbangkan kes ini secara keseluruhannya, mengaplikasikan pinsip “maximum evaluation of all witnesses” sepenuhnya seperti yang ditetapkan dibawah Undang-undang, dengan ini memutuskan bahawa di akhir kes Pihak Pendakwaan ini, pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan wujudnya suatu kes yang “prima facie” terhadap Tertuduh ini seperti mana pertuduhan”. THE APPEAL BEFORE US [5] Essentially, the defence of the appellant was that he had no knowledge of the impugned drugs and exhibit P7 (the bag containing the impugned drugs) did not belong to the appellant but it belonged to Chief to be given to Izu. [6] Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Learned High Court Judge erred in law and in fact when he made findings that the appellant had custody and control of the bag when there was no evidence to prove the fact that the appellant was the one carrying the bag. OUR DECISION [7] Having heard the appeal, we found no merit on the grounds raised by the appellant. We therefore unanimously dismissed the appeal and 6 affirmed the conviction and the death sentence imposed by the High Court. We now give our reasons. [8] We disagree with the learned counsel for the appellant on the point that the appellant had no knowledge of the impugned drugs. There is ample evidence to prove that the appellant had actual knowledge of what was contained in the bag. Below is the excerpt of the appellant’s testimony: When Chief give those things to you did you check it and asked him what is inside? I have checked it. What did you see when you checked? When I opened the bag, I saw sandal, sock, powders and clothes. Did you open the box and tins? When the Chief brought the bag to me and I asked him to open it. I saw what was inside the bag. [9] We also refer to the learned Judge’s grounds of judgment at page 14 and we quote: “Tertuduh menyatakan bahawa dia telah lihat isi kandungan di dalam bagasi P7, tetapi tidak memeriksa satu per satu. Tertuduh mengakui 7 bahawa dia tidak bertanya kepada Chief kenapa barang ini perlu dibawa olehnya sedangkan barang ini boleh dipos atau dikurier”. [10] We agree with the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor that the appellant’s denial was a bare denial and an afterthought. [11] We also agree with the findings of the learned trial judge that the character of Izu was a fictitious one and there was no need for the Investigating Officer to extend a great length to ensure that Izu was a real person. What was done by the IO was sufficient. (Refer to Notes of Proceedings page. 22 AR Vol 2). [12] We also refer to a Court of Appeal decision in Pius Emmanuel David v Public Prosectuor [2016] 1 MLJ 233 where Her Ladyship Aziah Hj Ali, JCA (as she was then) held that: “[42] It was further submitted that PW5 had failed to investigate ‘Jeff’ that was mentioned by the appellant in his cautioned statement exh D1. Learned counsel submitted that the IO ought to have examined the two handphone sim cards recovered from the appellant. We have perused the statement exh D1. Apart from giving the full name of Jeff, no further details were provided about Jeff. The appellant did not inform PW5 about any telephone number or address of Jeff. There is no evidence that the appellant had mentioned ‘Jeff’ to PW3 at the time he was arrested. He 8 only mentioned ‘Jeff’ in exh D1 which was recorded about three days after his arrest. If it is true that ‘Jeff’ existed, the appellant could have and should have given Jeff’s telephone number to either PW3 or PW5 at the first available opportunity. We find that the appellant’s defence lacked credible evidence that Jeff existed. The appellant’s failure to provide relevant information about ‘Jeff’ for the police to carry out a thorough investigation into the probability of his defence, entitled the learned trial judge to disbelieve him (Teng Howe Sing v Public Prosecutor [2009] 3 MLJ 46; [2009] 3 CLJ 733). The trial judge has not erred in finding that the defence is an afterthought. By making this finding, we find that the trial judge has sufficiently met the requirement of the Radhi’s direction.” [13] Alternatively, the accused cannot rely on the defence of willful blindness as there was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused had knowledge and was in custody of the impugned drugs. The learned trial judge was correct in his finding that the conduct of the accused taking the key of the luggage and opening it proves that exhibit P7 and all its contents were in exclusive possession and full knowledge of the accused. We refer to the learned judge’s grounds of judgment at page. 9, AR Volume 1: “Perbuatan Tertuduh yang menggunakan anak kunci yang diambil daripada poket kiri kotnya lalu membuka mangga pada begnya, jelas menunjukkan bahawa P7 berserta isi kandungannya adalah berada dibawah milikan eksklusif dan pengetahuan penuh Tertuduh sendiri. Melalui dapatan fakta dan keterangan di atas, ianya cukup kukuh untuk mengesahkan bahawa isu pemilikan P7 berserta isi kandungannya tidak dapat dinafikan oleh pihak Tertuduh”. 9 [14] We refer to a Court of Appeal decision in Benjamin William Hawkes v Public Prosecutor Criminal Appeal No: K-05(M)-218-06/2016(ZAF), where his Lordship Idrus bin Harun JCA held that: “[22] The learned judge’s finding that the element of possession had been proved by the prosecution was adequately supported by the evidence of PW4 which showed that the accused was seen carrying the bag which contained clothes and the document bag wherein the drug was found concealed. The particulars printed on the boarding pass (Exhibit P29) matched the information from the baggage tag which was wrapped around the handle of the bag. The accused, without any doubt, was having control and thus possession of the document bag at the material time”. [15] We hold further that since the appellant’s boarding pass and luggage tag were in the name of the appellant, evaluating the evidence as a whole, it clearly points to the appellant being in possession of the drugs. We concur with the learned trial judge that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence which points to the fact that the accused had knowledge and was in custody of exhibit P7 and all its contents. 10 [16] Having scrutinised the appeal records, we are satisfied that the evidence against the accused is overwhelming. We therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court. Dated: 13th December 2017 [DATUK DR PRASAD SANDOSHAM ABRAHAM] Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia 11 Counsel for Appellant Afifuddin Ahmad Hafifi Tetuan Salehuddin Saidin & Assoc Wisma Salehuddin No. 14, Jalan Tengku Ampuan Zabedah A 9/A Seksyen 9 40100 SHAH ALAM Counsel for Respondent Tengku Intan Suraya Binti Tengku Ismail (TPR) Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Bahagian Perbicaraan dan Rayuan Aras 5, No. 45, Blok 4G7 Jabatan Peguam Negara Persiaran Perdana 4 62100 PUTRAJAYA Cases Referred To: