Geoffery Ezeobi (WA-45A-44-04/2021)

of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA/Act 234), punishable under section 39B (2) of the DDA. [2] Core facts of the case, as presented, involve the accused being charged with the offence after dangerous drugs were discovered concealed inside marker pens within a parcel he was posting at a courier service. [3] The prosecution alleges that on 23.10.2020, at Mail Boxes Etc (MBE) office in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur, he was found trafficking dangerous drugs. Ingredients of the offence to be proven by the prosecution via credible evidence are that: • the accused was in mens rea possession of the impugned drugs found with him; • meth is a dangerous drug listed in the First Schedule to the DDA; • he trafficked the said dangerous drugs. S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA Prosecution Narrative [4] Sequentially, events leading to arrest of the accused and discovery of the drugs are the following:

Initial Delivery Attempt and Drug Discovery (Morning of 23.10.2020) • Parcel Arrival - around 10.40 am on 23.10.2020, the accused arrived at the MBE with the brown sealed box labelled "Mi Sedap". • Completing Forms – he filled in the Commercial Invoice form, initially using the name John Pual as the sender, based on instructions allegedly given by Henry. The staff member of MBE, SP4 requested him to change the sender name to Peter Pee, the name on the driver's licence he produced. • Initial Inspection - SP4 opened the Mi Sedap box and took out the contents, which were stationery for inspection. The accused had claimed the stationery looked normal and new, and he even helped put the items back into the box. So, the check was carried out in his sight and presence. • Payment and Departure – the accused paid the shipping cost of approximately RM400 and left the MBE office S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA around 11.20 am, leaving the Mi Sedap box unsealed on the counter.

(ii) Return to Courier Office and Arrest (Afternoon) • Request to Return - around 2.00 pm. a female MBE employee, SP5 called the accused and asked him to return to the office to fill in a new commercial Invoice form, claiming the original form was damaged after coffee was spilled on it. • Accused Returns – the accused travelled back from Cyberjaya to MBE Sentul, first stopping at home to retrieve the Peter Pee driver's licence. He arrived back at the MBE office area around 3.30 pm. • Second Inspection & Drug Discovery – the accused approached the Chinese staff member, SP5 who handed him a new form. The Mi Sedap box was present at the counter. When the accused noticed the box was dirty, he asked SP5 to exchange it. This too was done in his sight and presence. • SP5 opened the box, which was now sealed with transparent tape. • While the accused was helping remove the stationery, some men approached him, and one of them, put his hand on the S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA accused's neck. The accused stated he did not know they were Customs Officers and thought he was being robbed. • The raiding officer, SP6 one Faiz took one of the marker pens and, with difficulty, tried to open it in front of the accused. • SP6 informed the accused that there was drug substance suspected to be inside the marker pen.

(iii) The accused was then arrested and taken along with the Mi Sedap box and its contents to the Customs Narcotics Office, at Nilai. Compelling Evidence of Conduct [5] Evidentially, conduct of the accused relied on by the prosecution in order for this court to draw inferences as to his knowledge of the dangerous drugs, includes: • High Cost of Postage – the accused went ahead with the posting despite the delivery fee being approximately RM400, which the prosecution argued to be unreasonably high cost incurred for sending simple stationery like marker pens. This suspicious financial transaction should have prompted the accused to question the parcel's true contents. • State of Concealment – the impugned drugs were found in marker pens that were tightly sealed in two layers of plastic and S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA were difficult to open. The deliberate and complicated concealment was presented as a factor that should have aroused suspicion to the accused, inferring wilful blindness, which is to mean deliberately ignoring suspicious circumstances. • Post Incident Action/Return to Courier Office: the accused travelled from Cyberjaya back to MBE Sentul to fill in a new form and finalize the posting. The prosecution argued that this extra effort, made only to ensure the parcel was sent, suggests the accused was the true owner who was personally interested in the delivery, rather than an innocent carrier acting for a third party, Henry, as he claimed. • Failure to Question/Investigate Suspicion: the prosecution had requested for this court to invoke the doctrine of wilful blindness, arguing that the accused deliberately shut his eyes to the highly suspicious circumstances, like high cost and the unusual contents, which is equivalent to having knowledge. • Use of False/Contradictory Information for Delivery: the use by the accused of a false address; the phone number of a person named Sahani; different identification; a driving licence for Peter Pee; and another person’s ID; was shown to the court as conduct to evade detection, leading to a strong inference that S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA he knew the parcel contained illegal items and he tried to conceal his identity and actions. • WhatsApp Message Implicating Ownership – a voice message transcription (P98A) between the accused and Tisa HK showed the accused had discussed the logistics and stated, because that is my target. This statement adduced as direct evidence that the accused was the principal owner and planner of the shipment, and not a mere messenger. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is direct documentary evidence adduced, admissible per se. Finding at The Close of Prosecution Case [6]

2 MLJ 89, discussed in Akin Khan v PP (1987) 2 MLJ 217). However, he is also at liberty to raise a reasonable doubt on the proven prima facie case of mens rea possession of the said impugned drugs. [7] I was satisfied that the prosecution has adduced credible evidence to prove each ingredient of the offence charged, as required under section 180 (1) read together with section 180 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC/Act 593). Finding by this court at the close of case of the prosecution is the following: After having heard the evidence of all prosecution witnesses who were vehemently cross-examined, on a maximum evaluation, I find that the prosecution has been successful in proving a prima facie case against the accused. Therefore, this court now orders the accused to enter his defence to the charge preferred against him in P2. With assistance of counsel, accused wishes to testify from the witness box. Defence by Accused [8] As this court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused on the offence charged, he was ordered to enter on his defence, pursuant to section 180 (3) of the CPC. To reiterate, finding by this court was supported by credible evidence S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA proving that the accused was in mens rea possession of the impugned drugs. By virtue of the weight of the impugned drugs, he is presumed to be trafficking the said dangerous drugs. [9] After having explained the three (3) options available under the law on the mode and manner by which he wishes to defend himself, the accused had opted to testify from the witness box as SD1. Further, he had chosen to call another witness, Tochukwu Kelo Johnson as SD2, to support his defence. For the record, it has to be iterated that the accused had the assistance of an interpreter who was able to interpret the entire proceeding during the trial, albeit being partly heard, to him duly. [10] His defence is focussed on an acquittal and his key arguments are: • Lack of knowledge: he claimed he was asked by a friend named Henry to send a parcel to Hong Kong. Henry provided the sealed box, the sender/receiver information, and the contents of the parcel. Thus, he had no knowledge of the drugs inside. • To fortify his story, he had also claimed he had even allowed a staff member, SP4 to open and inspect the box, and he left the box unsealed after the transaction was complete. • Contradictory evidence and witness statements: it was pointed out by him that the CCTV footage provided to the court was not S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA complete and only showed specific moments. There was no footage of when or who re-sealed the box. Thus, it was argued that the box was left open and unsealed, and other people, including another employee, Anita and other customers, had access to it. • His defence was also toward noting a contradiction in the statements of staff members, SP4 and SP5 on whether the box was open or closed. • Integrity of evidence: doubts were raised on the evidence adduced, stating that a marker pen containing the drugs shown in court was a different colour than the one mentioned in open court. • It was also argued that the signature of the accused on one page of the seizure list was different from the others, and the date was missing. • Need to exclude access: several case authorities were cited to bolster up argument that the prosecution must prove exclusive possession, custody and control of the impugned drugs by the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the prosecution had failed to exclude the possibility of others having access to the parcel. S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA • It was also highlighted that the drugs were hidden inside forty-four (44) marker pens (P20 A – V and P21 (A to V)), which were not visible from the outside, requiring the chemist (SP3) to use a special tool (a spatula) to extract the contents, painstakingly. • Fitting his defence into the law, the accused had claimed he was merely an innocent carrier, asked by a friend named Henry to deliver a parcel containing stationery, and was unaware that it contained dangerous drugs. Refute by Prosecution [11] The prosecution focussed on rebutting his defence that he was an innocent carrier acting on behalf of a person named Henry. It was done by presenting evidence of conduct of the accused, including the use of false identities and phone numbers; an unusually high postage cost incurred; and suspicious WhatsApp messages that implicated his personal involvement and knowledge of the illegal content vis a vis the impugned drugs. Circumstantially, it has been proven that because of his physical possession of the impugned drugs (concealed inside marker pens) contained in a box, he is able and willing to dispose it of by sending it via courier to Hong Kong. (See by analogy the case of PP v Kau Joo Huat (1988) 2 MLJ 91). S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA [12] To the contrary, the prosecution had also forcefully contended that the defence advanced by the accused was not credible. It had failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the proven case of mens rea possession against him. Further to that on a balance of probabilities he was unable to offer positive evidence to tilt the balance in his favour against the presumed trafficking by him of the impugned drugs. Evaluation of Evidence [13] Juxtaposing the defence advanced by accused as against the proven case by the prosecution, the following are the evaluation and findings by this court: • Inconsistencies in the accused's story: it was contended that the character Henry is fabricated. The testimony of the accused is seen as contradictory and illogical when an initial discussion about Akara, a traditional Nigerian cake, suddenly shifted to a request to post a package. No evidence of a discussion about posting a package was found in the accused’s WhatsApp chats with Henry. Instead, evidence from the WhatsApp messages of the accused was produced in court to show conversations with a person named Tisa HK in Hong Kong and not Henry. S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA • Suspicious conversations: transcripts of voice messages between the accused and Tisa HK showed the accused himself planning the delivery, asking about payment for carrying a 500 dollars’ worth of products (which was the accused’s target) and agreeing to start with 600 dollars’ worth, which directly contradicts the claim that Henry asked him to do the posting. • Failure to cooperate: the accused had failed to provide information about Henry to the IO on his phone number, physical description, appearance or other personal details despite claiming to know Henry for a long time. It was revealed that this information was only brought up during the defence stage, rendering it an afterthought, as it is a defence that smacks of a recent invention on the part of the accused person. (See Muhammad Faizal bin Dulkifli (2017) 2 MLJ 228 (CA). • False information on courier form: the accused had used a phone number on the courier form P32, that was registered under another individual’s name in Penang, with no explanation from the defence. He had personally filled out and signed P32 with false information, including incorrect names, phone numbers, and quantity/price descriptions on two occasions. • Wilful blindness: it was contended that the accused had opportunities to examine the parcel and should have been S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA suspicious due to circumstances like the high shipping cost and the fact that ordinary marker pens were being sent from Malaysia to Hong Kong. By ignoring these red flags, the accused is supposed to have had knowledge of the parcel's contents. • Acknowledgment of Package Inspection: the accused personally confirmed and signed the Inspection Label P28, stating that he had inspected the contents of the package and agreed that the contents were accurate and correct. • Credibility of Defence Witness: Kelo, is a close friend of the accused and business partner, thus deemed to be an interested witness whose only intention was to save the accused, and he could not confirm Henry’s existence or the presence of the drugs. • Accused’s Demeanour During Testimony: his conduct during his testimony, particularly during cross-examination as observed by the court, he is found to be evasive, contradictory and inconsistent which significantly undermined his credibility. [14] Therefore, defence of the accused hinges on an attempt to create a reasonable doubt on the proven case of mens rea possession of the dangerous drugs. His aim is also to rebut the presumption of trafficking, by claiming that he was an innocent carrier, unaware of the contents of the Mi Sedap box. As he had allowed an S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA employee at MBE to open and inspect the box, is stated to be a point in his favour, lacking his intent to hide or conceal anything. On the integrity of evidence proffered in the case against him, issues were raised on the different colour of the marker pen and inconsistencies in the seizure list. These issues are contended to have cast doubt on the overall reliability of the evidence led by prosecution against him. Consequent to that, it is claimed that the prosecution had failed to prove exclusive possession of the dangerous drugs found with him. It was also suggested that since the Mi Sedap box was left unsealed and other people had access to it, possibility of someone else placing the impugned drugs inside the Mi Sedap box after he had left MBE cannot be discounted. [15] The above defence and explanations advanced by the accused are weakened significantly by the proven case of the prosecution. The innocent carrier story clashes directly with the WhatsApp messages and the voice messages about payment. The Henry story seems to be a complete fabrication in light of the Tisa HK evidence. While the defence cites authorities to support its argument for the need to exclude access, the prosecution's evidence of the accused's communication about payment and his S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA use of a false name suggests his higher level of involvement than a simple carrier. The manner of handling of the box by both SP4 and SP5 shows openness of communication with the accused, and it was also never the version of the accused that it was not stationery inside the box, albeit its content being dangerous drugs. It was the same marker pens contained in the Mi Sedap box which was sent by the investigation officer (IO) of this case to the chemist for analysis, then picked up by him and produced in court as incriminating exhibits against the accused. This court notes that the IO of the case, SP9 Mohd Ruzaini Mohd Rafi has been meticulous and comprehensive in his foray of investigation and had to a very large extent left no stones unturned. In court, a feather to his cap is his witness statement tendered as PSP9, which I also find to be comprehensive and the exact narrative of what had transpired in the case. The mode and manner by which he had marshalled all the evidence he had collected, also demonstrates extreme fairness, transparency and justness when approaching the investigation. In fact, all parties to this case was informed that the witness statement he had tendered in court is to serve as a guide to other investigation officers who has to testify in open court. S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA Legal Position and Findings [16] Viewing all of the above, it is for this court to assess the applicability of legal principles against the strong factual evidence presented by the prosecution and also all refutations and rebuttal by the accused. Based on all the evidence adduced in the trial, the case of the prosecution is stronger. The prosecution's evidence, particularly the WhatsApp messages; the voice messages; and the use of a false name/address; directly contradicts the core of the defence's case that the accused was only an innocent carrier, and also not knowing the contents of the marker pens, where drugs were concealed, and it was contained in an innocuous Mi Sedap box, P30. [17] Issues raised on integrity of evidence adduced at the trial, forming the proven case by the prosecution against the accused, in the main that he lacks exclusive possession of the impugned drugs, is insufficient to create a reasonable doubt, on the face of the proven case that the accused was in direct communication with his counterpart Tisa HK on payment. The story on involvement of Henry is a farce and fabrication to thwart criminal culpability. Further, application of the wilful blindness doctrine strengthens the case against the accused, as he had deliberately chosen to shut S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA his eyes to the obvious. Wholly, left is an intact case against the accused that he was in mens rea possession of the impugned drugs he was caught with. [18] Cementing the proven case by prosecution is evidence via WhatsApp messages, P94 & P98A showing that the accused was communicating with a contact in Hong Kong (+852), thus contradicting his testimony of meeting Henry in Kepong, Kuala Lumpur. Crucially, a voice message transcription, P98A showed the accused had planned the delivery, when he had inquired on the payment and target. He was the owner of the Mi Sedap box containing the marker pens in which there was dangerous drugs, who had arranged for the delivery transaction to Hong Kong. [19] The continual use by the accused of the following, bolster up the case against the accused: o False identity and untrue information, including a driver's license in the name Peter Pee, o Use of his brother's identification card (ID), Olisaemeka Ignatius both during arrest and for the delivery arrangements, and o phone numbers belonging to others, along with a false address on the courier form. The phone number used on the S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA courier form, P32, 016 – 6798003, was registered under the name of a person named Sahani in Penang, which was used by the accused. The registered address was 3, Puncak Kawasan Perai, 13600, Perai, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. A letter of instruction to assist in the investigation was sent to an individual Sheladia Shankara, at an address in Gelugor, Pulau Pinang. However, the document notes that the letter was returned because it failed to be delivered to the recipient. This highlights the deliberate move by the accused, experienced in posting, to place an incorrect address and phone number on the form to avoid detection and also to conceal his actions. To his dismay, it had worked against him, as it was thwarted by the customs authorities and nipped at the bud, before the drugs leaves our beloved country. o Conduct of the accused ignoring the high postage cost, the tight concealment of the drugs in marker pens, and the effort to finalise the posting, constitute wilful blindness, as he had failed to inquire on the true contents of the Mi Sedap box. o Henry was a fictitious character, with no contact information, being in flat contradiction with the Hong Kong WhatsApp number, and “my target” voice message, directly S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA undermining foundation of the defence that a third party was responsible. o His deliberate attempt to conceal identity and the flow of delivery gives rise to an irrefutable inference that he was the principal party with full knowledge. His use of multiple false identities, to wit, Peter Pee, brother’s ID, false phone numbers, and a false address are powerful circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge and a plan to avoid detection. [20] Collectively, all the above evidences have successfully neutralised any reasonable doubt raised by the defence with regard to the proven case of mens rea possession of the impugned drugs. It is also clear that there has been established overt acts on the part of the accused to deliver via courier the drugs to someone else. It presupposes a conduct of a nature that is reflective of more than mere possession of the impugned drugs. (See Ramli bin Ali v PP (2017) 6 CLJ 652 (CA)), and in the present case to traffic the impugned drugs. [21] Therefore, this court finds the case of prosecution proven beyond reasonable doubt, leading to a finding of guilty and thereon a conviction, which is supported by the evidence adduced which was cross-examined at length by the accused via his counsel and S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA the applicable law. In this regard, this court is ever mindful of the dictum by Wan Suleiman FCJ (as he then was) in the case of Krishnan v PP (1987) 1 MLJ 292 SC, that it is one of the most basic rules of justice that however heinous a crime a person is accused of, whatever the rank of the person who testifies against him, he can only be convicted on evidence produced according to the stringent requirements of the law. The accused's claim to be only an innocent carrier, is severely undermined by the specific details of his communication and actions, as alluded to above. [22] As the prosecution has proven the accused was at all material times in mens rea possession of the dangerous drugs meth, weighing 375.8 grams, it far exceeded the legal threshold, for the compelling presumption of law to be invoked against him. Thus, the burden of proof had shifted on to the accused to rebut the said presumption on a balance of probabilities. He has to prove by adducing admissible evidence when doing so. It cannot be mere denial to escape criminal liability, but sufficient evidence to prove that he did not traffic the said drugs. His attempt to create a reasonable doubt in the proven case of mens rea possession of the dangerous drugs is insufficient to tilt the balance of probabilities in his favour. S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA [23] To reiterate, the accused appreciates and understands the law, as via his counsel he had claimed he was an innocent carrier, believing the parcel contained only stationery. He had also argued that by allowing a staff member at MBE to inspect the Mi Sedap box shows he lacks the intent to hide the contents of the box. But he has forgotten, the marker pens per se was not the issue but the impugned drugs concealed inside it matters, which was detected by the customs authorities, when he had endeavoured to have it delivered to Hong Kong. On that score, the damning evidence against him tendered by the prosecution prevails over his simple assertion of "I didn't know" and that is insufficient to rebut the strong inference of knowledge of the impugned drugs attributed to him and to tilt the balance of probabilities in his favour. [24] Further, argument by the defence that the box was left unsealed and accessible to the MBE staff, albeit being a crucial legal point, but has to be juxtaposed with the proffered evidence during the case of prosecution, cemented by documentary proof in the form of photographs, CCTV recording, search and seizure documents as well as oral testimonies of the witnesses whom had offered first-hand eye witness account of what had transpired on the day of arrest. Those witnesses are not bent on having the accused S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA booked under the law, but only to narrate to the court what had transpired and how they reacted to the investigators from the Customs Enforcement Department. In that premise, much ado on proof of exclusive possession, custody, and control is only a tactical legal manoeuvre to thwart criminal culpability. It is trite that case authorities, support the argument that if others had an opportunity to tamper with the evidence, a reasonable doubt exists, but all the same, strength of that argument is dependent on whether this court believes that the conduct and reaction by the accused at all material times before arrest and upon arrest, which includes his concealing tactic to have used false names and identities as well as his suspicious communication with Tisa HK. It is finding of this court that those tangible evidence caters towards proof of guilt of the accused and it is never a case where there has been temperance of the box containing marker pens by third party. It is apparent from the evidence adduced by SP4 and SP5, whom were manning the MBE courier centre, were forthright when dealing with the accused. In fact, it was the accused who had asked for a change of packaging as the original box was damaged. He too had seen the marker pens taken out and placed in back again to the box. Moreover, at that point of time, both SP4 and SP5 was unaware of the concealed dangerous drugs in the S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA 44 marker pens, until the customs enforcement officers came into the MBE office to arrest him. On that score, to allude to temperance or break in chain of custody of the box and the marker pens by swapping it is a dubious effort on part of the accused person to thwart criminal culpability under the law. [25] Doubts raised on the evidence as to marker pen colour, missing signature date, if proven has the effect of undermining reliability of the entire chain of evidence. But, it has to be patently observed that in the light of cogent evidence tendered by the prosecution which stood uncontroverted until conclusion of trial, the inconsistencies which has arisen could be dismissed as minor and insignificant. It does not have the effect of demonstrating that the impugned drugs were planted or swapped. It too is insufficient to counter the weight of other telling evidence, like the false identification used throughout his dealing with the courier service and the existing voice messages, in which he was a willing party. Findings at Conclusion of Trial [26] In sum total, the prosecution's case is robust, directly refuting the core of the defence's argument. The prosecution's use of WhatsApp messages showing communication with Tisa HK completely dismantles the defence’s innocent carrier story. The S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA fact that the accused withheld this information from customs officers during the investigation makes the Henry story a fabrication, an afterthought. This is a significant blow to the accused's credibility. His witness SD2’s account that Henry may in fact exist does not affect the proven case by the prosecution, as if it is so, he could have been called as a witness, since he was the one who had directed the accused to send the box containing the marker pens to Hong Kong. Hence, it is not so much the existence of Henry, but the conduct and action of the accused in its entirety (as alluded to above repeatedly) from the point of time he arrived at the MBE office to have P30 delivered and his subsequent arrest with the same box. The voice messages about a 500 dollars product and a target strongly indicates a commercial transaction. This evidence directly contradicts the claim that the accused was simply helping a friend and had no knowledge of the parcel's value or purpose. This evidence points toward a clear motive and involvement beyond that of an innocent carrier. [27] The argument on wilful blindness, is again a compelling legal argument by the prosecution and its cutting-edge. Established legal principles holds that a person who deliberately avoids knowledge of a fact can be treated as if they had knowledge. It is S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA so in the present case, as the accused ignored clear red flags - such as the high shipping cost; the use of a false name; and the suspicious nature of sending marker pens from Malaysia to Hong Kong; suggests his deliberate choice to remain ignorant of the parcel's contents. This doctrine renders a legal mechanism for this court to find that the accused had constructive knowledge of the impugned drugs to be delivered. This entrenched principle is not without any support but mirrored in the case of Sansregret v The Queen (1985) 1 SCR 570, which was referred to by our apex Court in the case of Maria Elvira Pinto Exposto (2020) 5 CLJ (FC), wherein the Supreme Court had decided: The rule that wilful blindness is equivalent to knowledge is essential and is found throughout the criminal law. It is, at the same time, an unstable rule, because judges are apt to forget its very limited scope. A court can properly find wilful blindness only where it can almost be said that the defendant actually knew. He suspected the fact; he realised its probability; but he refrained from obtaining final confirmation because he wanted in the event to be able to deny knowledge. This, and this alone is wilful blindness … [28] To conclude, arguments raised by the defence, whilst worthy of consideration and evaluation, as duly embarked by this court, but it is factually weakened by the compelling evidence tendered by the prosecution. Although issues were raised on the chain of custody and integrity of evidence tendered in court as proof S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA against the accused, it remains insignificant and insufficient to displace the overwhelming evidence of the direct involvement of the accused in a commercial endeavour, but in the course of it a clear attempt made to conceal the true nature of the concealed dangerous drugs. In court, he had made a foolish attempt to fabricate a defence, when the evidence against him is glaring and apparent. Thus, on a maximum evaluation of the entire evidence in the case, this court finds that the accused, Geoffrey Ezeobi, has failed to rebut the legal presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities, leaving behind a case proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Ultimately, it is this court’s finding that he is not an innocent carrier of the dangerous drugs but a drug trafficker operating from our beloved country. [29] Ensuing from the above, accused is also found to have not raised a reasonable doubt on the proven case by the prosecution and the presumption of trafficking under the DDA militates against him. It is settled law pursuant to the decision of our apex Court in the case of Sathya Veloo v PP (2022) 5 CLJ 659 at page 691 where it was decided by His Lordship Abdul Rahman Sebeli FCJ (as he then was) that a trial judge can refer to facts already established at the close of the prosecution case for the purpose of satisfying S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA himself whether the accused’s explanation has succeeded in rebutting a statutory presumption on the balance of probabilities or has succeeded in casting a reasonable doubt in his mind as to truth of the prosecution case, and what the trial judge could not do is to change or alter his findings on those facts, which is never in the present case. (See also His Lordship’s dictum in the case of PP v Ahmad Juweni & Anor Appeal (2017) 6 CLJ 630 CA). Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and upon rigorous maximum evaluation of all the evidence adduced in the case, as required under section 182A of the CPC, including the sequence of events leading to arrest of the accused; his conduct both pre and post arrest; analysis by the chemist which was unrebutted; this court finds the accused guilty of the offence of drug trafficking as charged. Following to that, he is convicted on the charge for the said offence under section 39B (1) (a) of the DDA and be sentenced under section 39B (2) of the DDA. Before sentencing him according to law, his plea in mitigation was heard. Mitigation and Sentence [30] The court heard his plea in mitigation before meting out an appropriate sentence. His plea is as per the record of proceeding, which is reproduced as the following: S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA Interpreter took oath – and he was present throughout the entire trial proceeding to explain to the accused on the evidence adduced in the trial in the Iqbo language.

Defence Counsel (DC)

Usia 48 tahun

Sebelum ditangkap - jurujual barang-barang elektronik terpakai Gaji - RM2000 hingga RM3000 sebulan.

Sudah berkahwin.

Berada dalam reman sejak 23.10.2020

Telah insaf dan menyesal atas perbuatan.

Pesalah pertama.

TIada rekod jenayah

Faktor mitigasi untuk diambil kira.

Sekarang ini samada hukuman mati atau hukuman penjara seumur hidup iaitu 30 tahun dan sebatan tidak kurang dari 12 sebatan.

Chooi Kah Fai v PP - dadah jenis sama - 7,296.7 gram – Mahkamah Rayuan telah gantikan hukuman mati dengan hukuman seumur hidup dengan 12 kali sebatan.

Mahendran v PP - 372.95-gram meth - hukuman seumur hidup.

Dalam kes ini - 375.8-gram meth.

Mohon hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan sebatan sebanyak 12 kali.

DPP Public interest - paramount consideration.

PP v Loo Choon Fatt

Seriousness of the offence.

Pray for the death penalty.

Weight 375.8 grams - 7 times higher than the threshold.

Accused was caught red handed.

Not a temporary carrier - but a trafficker.

Pre-meditated offence.

No respect for the law of this country.

Public interest to prevail over private interest.

Trial took a long time - he could have pleaded guilty at the first instance.

Rampancy of the drug offences in the country.

Mugilan v PP - death sentence was affirmed.

Here, drugs were neatly packed in 44 marker pens.

Leave it to the court's wisdom. DC Masih mohon hukuman penjara seumur hidup. Accused Pray for justice to be tempered with mercy. Aware of the punishment under the law. [31] After having considered the case in its entirety, there was no evidence of buying and selling of meth at the time when the accused was arrested. The involvement of the accused is only limited to being in mens rea possession of large quantity of meth, kept concealed in the 44 marker pens, to which he had full access and control. The evidence adduced in the case reveals the conduct of the accused who was found in mens rea possession of large quantity of meth and the manner in which it was concealed signifies it is for the purpose of trafficking by delivering to an address at Hong Kong. However, case of the prosecution is proven by invoking the S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA statutory presumption of trafficking and not premised on direct evidence of trafficking pursuant to section 2 of the DDA. [32] On that basis, when meting out an appropriate sentence, all the factors posed, including plea in mitigation by counsel for the accused and the accused himself, also submission on aggravating factors by the DPP were weighed on a balance, given anxious consideration and a sentence according to law is passed, which is proportional to criminal conduct of the accused. The principle of proportionality demands that the sentence meted out to be in conjunction with gravity of the offence, degree of responsibility of the accused and specific circumstances of the crime, as in the present case. Ultimately, premised on all the material factors, this court sentences the accused to the following punishment: • Sentence of imprisonment of 30 years, which is to take effect from the date of arrest on 23.10.2020. • Sentence of whipping up to 12 strokes as provided for under the law. Accused found guilty and convicted for the offence of drug trafficking. S/N OvPxwd/Nu0ipawHydQiWA Dated 30 November 2025 SGD Muniandy Kannyappan Judge, High Court Criminal (2) Kuala Lumpur. Parties DPP Mohd Erulyuskha Mohd Yusof of the Attorney General’s Chambers, for and on behalf of the prosecution (Royal Customs and Excise Department) DC Renalyn Rivera together with Siti Roahya bte Mohd Tajudin of Rivera Chambers for and on behalf of the accused.