Subparagraph
(iii) Pihak pembelaan telah memberi ‘Alcontara Notice’ yang mencukupi untuk siasatan lanjut dibuat tetapi pihak kastam gagal berbuat demikian. Pihak kastam dikatakan gagal menyiasat mengenai penama Fang Fang iaitu kawan tertuduh dan seorang lagi penama iaitu Ah Jie, seorang lelaki berkulit hitam yang memberikan bagasi yang berisi dadah tersebut kepada tertuduh untuk diberikan kepada rakannya di Malaysia. Maklumat-maklumat ini dinyatakan dalam rakaman percakapan tertuduh kepada pihak kastam. (D47) PENILAIAN DAN KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH INI [13] Prinsip undang-undang menetapkan bahawa keputusan Hakim Bicara boleh disemak oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dengan menilai keterangan yang ada. Ini bagi menentukan sama ada keputusan atau dapatan yang dibuat oleh Hakim Bicara bersandarkan keterangan atau menepati undang-undang. Sekiranya tidak, keputusan atau dapatan tersebut boleh diketepikan. [14] Dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan, Ahmad Najib Aris v PP [2009] 2 CLJ 800 dinyatakan seperti berikut: 7 “I am of the view that the Court of Appeal has the power to review or to re-evaluate all the evidence available as adduced by the prosecution. The Court of Appeal is in the position to do so in the present case even though the grounds of decision of the trial judge as appearing in the appeal records is found lacking in specific findings and with no reasons for the findings. In a case involving purely question of fact, the Court of Appeal is free to determine whether or not the various findings of the trial judge are correct (see Mohamed Mokhtar v PP [1972] 1 MLJ 122.” (lihat juga PP v Azilah Hadri & Anor [2015] 1 CLJ 579) [15] Kembali semula kepada kes terhadap tertuduh, elemen pertama yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan adalah sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan terhadap dadah berbahaya dalam bag bagasi yang dibawa oleh tertuduh berkenaan. [16] Isu milikan ini telah banyak diterangkan oleh nas undang-undang termasuk oleh mahkamah tertinggi di negara ini yang juga menyentuh interpretasi undang-undang sedia ada berhubung dengan isu milikan. Disini adalah bersesuaian diimbas kembali nas undang-undang yang berkaitan. Dalam kes Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] 1 MLJ 237 Hakim Thompson menjelaskan: “‘Possession’ itself as regards the criminal law is described as follows in Stephen’s Digest (9th Ed page 304). A movable thing is said to be in the possession of a person when he is so situated with respect to it that he has the power to deal with it as the 8 owner to the exclusion of all other persons, and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in the case of need” (penekanan ditambah) [17] Selanjutnya, bagi membuktikan elemen milikan ini, pihak pendakwaan perlu membuktikan tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah dalam beg bagasi berkenaan. Jelasnya, pengetahuan boleh dibuktikan melalui keterangan mengikut keadaan dan perbuatan serta reaksi tertuduh terutamanya pada masa kejadian. [18] Berhubung isu pengetahuan ini, dalam kes Ramis a/l Muniandy v PP [2001] 3 SLR 534 yang prinsip undang-undangnya diterima pakai oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Abdul Rahman bin Akif [2007] 5 MLJ 1, Hakim Yong Peng How menjelaskan seperti berikut: “Knowledge of the drugs The starting point in the consideration of this issue was that we had already concluded that the drugs was already on Ramis’s motorcycle when he entered the vicinity and that he had physical control of the drugs. In the absence of any reasonable explanation by Ramis, these facts were sufficient to lead a strong inference that Ramis knew that the bag found on his motorcycle contained drugs.” 9 Tertuduh dalam kes ini juga mempunyai kawalan fizikal terhadap dadah dalam beg bagasi yang dibawa oleh tertuduh dan tanpa penjelasan yang munasabah, inferennya adalah tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa beg yang dibawanya mengandungi dadah-dadah berkenaan. [19] Berhubung isu yang sama, Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Samundee Devan Muthu Kerishnan v PP [2010] 3 CLJ 269 menyatakan : “[15] We also of the view that the contemporaneous conduct of the appellant in attempting to run away when PW7 identified himself as ‘police’ is relevant and admissible pursuant to s.8 of the Evidence Act 1950 under the circumstances of the instant appeal. Such conduct, of course not to be taken in isolation but together with all the other circumstances of the case. That would be the correct approach to circumstantial. (see Chan Chwen Kong v PP [1962] 1 LNS 22) .. [17] We find the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the learned trial judge showed that the appellant was clearly in possession of the plastic packages and that he had knowledge of the contents of the packages. The facts denote the said dangerous drugs were in his custody and control. He was in possession of a set of keys one of which was used to open the boot of the motorcar in which the dangerous drugs were found. He was clearly aware of the packages when he was approached by the police and consequently attempted to run away. The combined strength of these facts gave rise to a strong inference that the appellant had mens rea possession of the packages containing the dangerous drugs and he had knowledge of the dangerous drugs. There was evidence of possession of the dangerous drugs independent of s. 37(d) of the Act.” (penekanan ditambah) 10 [20] Berbalik kepada keterangan dalam kes ini, beg bagasi di mana dadah berbahaya ditemui di dalamnya dibawa oleh tertuduh yang pada ketika itu bersendirian. Pada beg tersebut juga terdapat tag nama tertuduh dan pakaian yang ditemui dalam beg berkenaan bersesuaian dengan tertuduh apabila dibuat suaipadan. Tertuduh juga dilihat dalam keadaan mencurigakan dengan berjalan mundar-mandir di laluan pemeriksaan kastam. Seterusnya, tertuduh menangis dan murung apabila bahan kristal berwarna putih di temui dalam beg yang dibawa oleh tertuduh walaupun pada ketika itu bahan kristal tersebut belum disahkan lagi sebagai dadah berbahaya. [21] Berhubung isu ini, Hakim Bicara terkhilaf apabila menjadikan alasan bahawa disebabkan dadah-dadah tersebut tersorok dalam bungkusan teh cina dan kotak makanan, tertuduh tidak mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai dadah-dadah berkenaan. Hakim Bicara seharusnya memberi pertimbangan terhadap keseluruhan keterangan langsung dan mengikut keadaan dalam kes ini dalam membuat dapatannya. Jika tidak, semua kes di mana dadahnya tersorok dan dibungkus rapi serta tidak dapat dilihat dari luaran, tidak dapat diambil sebarang tindakan undang-undang. Ini pastinya bukan niat parlimen menggubal ADB 1952. [22] Berkaitan isu yang sama, dalam kes Zulfikar bin Mustaffah v PP [2001] 1 SLR (R) 181, di mana prinsip undang undangnya diterima pakai oleh Mahkamah di Malaysia, Ketua Hakim Yong Pung How menyatakan seperti berikut : 11 “.. In the course of the appeal before us, counsel for the appellant relied heavily on the fact that the contents of the bundles were securely wrapped in newspaper and could not be identified. We were accordingly invited to draw the inference that the appellant had no knowledge of the contents of the bundles. 22 We were unable to accede to this request. While the fact that the contents of the bundles were hidden from view may have been relevant in determining whether the requisite knowledge was absent, this factor should still not to be given too much weight. Otherwise, drug peddlers could escape liability simply by ensuring that any drugs coming into their possession are first securely sealed in opaque wrappings. Rather the court must appraise the entire facts of the case to see if the accused’s claim to ignorance is credible...” (penekanan ditambah) [23] Inferens yang munasabah dari penilaian keterangan yang digariskan di atas menunjukkan bahawa tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai dadah di dalam beg bagasi yang dibawanya itu dan seterusnya mempunyai milikan terhadap dadah-dadah berkenaan. Justeru itu, elemen milikan telah dibuktikan oleh pihak Pendakwaan tanpa bantuan anggapan milikan di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB 1952. [24] Seksyen 37(d) ADB 1952 adalah satu lagi cara bagi membuktikan elemen milikan dan anggapan milikan ini terpakai apabila dibuktikan bahawa tertuduh mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan terhadap apa juga yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya. Berdasarkan keterangan adalah jelas tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan terhadap beg bagasi 12 yang terdapat dadah berbahaya di dalamnya. Berkaitan isu ini, Mahkamah Persekutuan menjelaskan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Abdul Manaf bin Muhamad Hassan [2006] 3 MLJ 193 seperti berikut: ‘[17] It ought to be stated at the outset that the decision in Muhammad bin Hassan only prohibits the use of double presumptions under ss 37(d) and 37(da) of the Act. It is therefore, open to the prosecution to rely on either of the presumptions. In other words, the prosecution may positively prove possession without relying on the presumption under s 37(d) of the Act and go on to rely on the presumption of trafficking under 37(da) of the Act to support a charge under s 39B of the Act. See Tunde Apatira & ors v Public Prosecutor; Msimanga Lesaly v Public Prosecutor [2005] 4 MLJ 314, a decision of Court of Appeal which was confirmed by this Court in Federal Court Criminal Appeal No 05 – 27 of 2004(K). Conversely, the prosecution may rely on the presumption under s 37(d) to prove possession and seek to prove by affirmative evidence (independent of the presumption under section 37(da)) that the accused was in fact trafficking in the dangerous drugs.’ (penekanan ditambah) [25] Berdasarkan penilaian keterangan yang ada, pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan bahawa tertuduh mempunyai milikan terhadap dadah berbahaya yang ditemui dalam beg bagasi tertuduh pada hari kejadian berkenaan. 13 [26] Seterusnya, adalah berhubung elemen pengedaran dadah berkenaan. Isunya, adakah tertuduh melakukan kesalahan mengedar dadah tersebut. [27] Berhubung isu pengedaran ini, peruntukan undang-undang iaitu seksyen 2 ADB 1952 menyatakan: ‘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 regulation made under the Act...’ (penekanan ditambah) [28] Definisi pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2 ini adalah luas termasuk perbuatan mengangkut atau membawa. Berdasarkan bacaan ‘literal’ definisi pengedaran ini, tidak dapat dipertikaikan bahawa dadah berbahaya yang dibawa masuk oleh tertuduh dalam kes ini dari Chengdu, China ke Malaysia adalah termasuk di bawah definisi mengedar di bawah seksyen 2 ini. [29] Walau bagaimanapun, terdapat nas undang-undang yang menyatakan perlu adanya perbuatan ‘overt act’ bagi membolehkan tindakan membawa dadah tersebut termasuk di bawah definisi pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2 tersebut. Lord Diplock dalam kes Ong 14 Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor, Koh Chai Cheng v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64 dan diterima pakai prinsipnya oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Abdul Manaf bin Muhamad Hassan (supra) menyatakan: “[20] However, the mere act of carrying is not sufficient to constitute the offence of trafficking. This is clearly explained by Lord Diplock in Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor, Koh Chai Cheng v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64, where at p 68 he observed: ‘To ‘traffic’ in a controlled drug so as to constitute the offence of trafficking under s 3 involves something more than passive possession or self-administration of the drug; it involves doing or offering to do an overt act of one or of other of the kinds specified in paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘traffick’ and trafficking in s 2...” (penekanan ditambah) [30] Tindakan ‘‘overt act ‘tersebut seterusnya dijelaskan oleh Lord Diplock seperti berikut: “ 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 of preparatory to or in furtherance of or for the purpose of trafficking 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 steps or 15 overt act by the accused is needed, directed to transferring possession of the drug to some other person, and it is a consequence of the clandestine nature of the drug trade and the means adopted for the detection of those engaged in it, that the further step that the prosecution is most likely to be able to prove in evidence is the act of the accused in transporting the drug to some place where he intends to deliver it to someone else, whether it be the actual consumer or a distributor or another dealer”. (emphasis added) [31] Kembali kepada kes terhadap tertuduh, dadah berbahaya berkenaan dibawa dari Chengdu, China ke Malaysia dalam bungkusan teh dan kotak makanan. Jumlah berat dadah yang dibawa juga adalah besar iaitu 1,841.7 gram methamphetamine dan inferens yang munasabah boleh dibuat bahawa dadah tersebut adalah untuk diserahkan kepada pihak lain dan pastinya bukan untuk kegunaan tertuduh sendiri. Sehubungan itu terdapat ‘overt act’ yang mengiringi perbuatan membawa dadah oleh tertuduh dalam kes ini. [32] Isu ‘overt act’ ini juga telah dijelaskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes yang lebih terkini iaitu PP v Herlina Purnama Sari [2016] 1 LNS 1855 di mana diputuskan bahawa kehendak perlunya ada ‘overt act’ dalam semua kes untuk membukti elemen pengedaran adalah suatu kekhilafan. Dalam kes tersebut dinyatakan: 16 “[37] The second error of the trial judge’s finding that to constitute trafficking, the mens rea possession must be accompanied by some overt act by the respondent. It is unfortunate that the Court of Appeal had also committed similar error in agreeing with the finding of fact of the trial judge by holding “ without any evidence that would show an overt act of one or other of the kind specified in the definition of trafficking in s 2 of Act 234 or specifically of conveying, transporting, carrying, moving or promoting from one place to another in the sense of doing so to promote the distribution of the drug to another”, the respondent could not be a trafficker but merely had passive possession of the impugned drugs. [38] With respect, the proposition that there must be in all cases an overt act in order to constitute trafficking is misconceived. It would be contrary to the definition of trafficking as provided for under s. 2 of the Act… [39] We are of the view that whether or not a person is a trafficker within the definition of s. 2 of the Act is dependent of the facts and circumstances of a given case. In this case, it is not in dispute that when the respondent was arrested she was carrying the luggage bag which amongst other things contained the impugned drugs. The respondent was apprehended in the act of carrying from one place to another a large amount of dangerous drugs. It is in evidence that the respondent was unaccompanied by any person when she carried the luggage bag. The luggage bag was registered in the respondent’s name when she checked in at the Air Asia check-in counter. The impugned drugs were found hidden in the two boxes. In fact, the drugs were neatly and securely concealed from view in both the boxes. We are of the view that the manner in which the impugned drugs were concealed in the luggage bag showed that the respondent knew the existence of the drugs there, and evinced the intention of the careful planning by the respondent to conceal the impugned drugs to avoid and escape detection” 17 (PP v. Abdul Rahman Aktif [2007] 1 MLRA 568 and The Hock Leong v. PP [2008] 1 MLRA 548) (penekanan ditambah) [33] Fakta dalam kes Herlina Purnama Sari (supra) hampir sama dengan fakta dalam kes tertuduh dan berdasarkan huraian di atas dan penilaian keterangan dan undang-undang menunjukkan bahawa pihak pendakwaan juga telah membuktikan elemen pengedaran dalam kes terhadap tertuduh. ISU-ISU BERBANGKIT ‘Alcontara Notice’ [34] Hakim Bicara dalam kes ini memutuskan bahawa pihak pembelaan telah memberi notis yang mencukupi untuk siasatan dijalankan terhadap penama ‘Fang Fang’ dan ‘Ah Jie’ iaitu penama-penama yang disebut dalam rakaman percakapan tertuduh (D47). Penelitian terhadap D47 mendapati tertuduh hanya menyatakan bahawa bagasi yang mengandungi dadah tersebut diberikan oleh seorang bernama Ah Jie untuk dibawa ke Malaysia dan Ah Jie tidak dikenali oleh tertuduh sebelum itu. Ah Jie merupakan kawan kepada kawan tertuduh, Fang Fang. 18 [35] Tiada sebarang maklumat lain diberikan kepada pihak penyiasat berhubung kedua-dua penama ini untuk diambil tindakan lanjut. Malahan tertuduh langsung tidak mengenali Ah Jie. Pegawai Penyiasat kes ini, Muhammad Hasrul bin Mohd Fauzi (SP15) dalam keterangannya mengesahkan seperti berikut : ’72…. Namun, siasatan lanjut terhadap penama Fang Fang dan Ah Jie tidak dapat dilakukan kerana OKT mengesahkan tidak kenal Ah Jie dan tiada maklumat lengkap atau pun nombor telefon yang boleh disiasat untuk mengesan Fang Fang. OKT juga tidak menyatakan ada perbualan telefon yang dibuat terhadap Fang Fang dan Ah Jie untuk disiasat. [36] Berhubung isu yang sama, Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Phiri Mailesi v PP [2013] 1 LNS 391 menjelaskan seperti berikut: ‘It is pertinent to note that the Alcontara Notice must have sufficient particulars in the right perspective and not a vague notice where the prosecution would not be able to advance their investigation to rebut the defence story or version. It must also be given at the earliest opportunity at the material time of the arrest or at least upon counsel taking instruction from the accused to conduct its defence.’ Dalam kes ini, jelasnya tiada `Alcontara Notice’ yang mencukupi atau lengkap diserahkan kepada pihak penyiasat. [37] Di samping itu terdapat percanggahan material dalam D47 di mana pada mulanya tertuduh menyatakan bahawa beg bagasi tersebut 19 diberikan oleh Ah Jie kepada tertuduh tetapi kemudiannya menyatakan Fang Fang yang menyerahkan beg tersebut kepadanya. Dalam D47 tersebut kenyataan yang diberikan oleh tertuduh tersebut adalah seperti berikut : ‘J9: Bagasi tersebut telah diberikan oleh seorang lelaki berkulit hitam bernama Ah Jie yang menyuruh saya membawa ke Malaysia’ ..‘J11: Saya tidak mengenali lelaki berkulit hitam tersebut tetapi kawan saya mengenali lelaki berkenaan. Kawan saya bernama Fang Fang meminta saya supaya menolong lelaki berkulit hitam ini untuk membawa barang ke Malaysia. Bagasi tersebut diserahkan kepada saya oleh Fang Fang di Chengdu, tempat berdekatan dengan Lapangan Terbang…’ [38] Di sini jelasnya, percanggahan material ini menjejaskan kebolehpercayaan terhadap kenyataan tertuduh dalam D47 tersebut. [39] Walau apa pun, percakapan beramaran tertuduh yang dikemukakan di peringkat pendakwaan dan tidak disoal balas kandungan percakapan beramaran tersebut adalah bersifat ‘exculpatory” dan tidak seharusnya dijadikan sandaran oleh Hakim Bicara untuk meminda pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh. Dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan PP v Mansor bin Mohd Rashid & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 233 diputuskan seperti berikut : ‘[6] The trial Judge was wrong in concluding, based on the 1st respondent's exculpatory statement, that the 1st respondent was not involved in the sale of 20 the cannabis and that Amran had occupied the said room. A purely exculpatory or self-serving statement is not evidence of the facts stated although it may be admitted to show the reaction or attitude of the accused at the time he made it. In considering whether there was a case toanswer, the trial Judge ought not to take into account such a statement as the basis for founding an order of acquittal and discharge’. (penekanan ditambah) KESIMPULAN [40] Berdasarkan huraian di atas, kami mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan suatu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan asal terhadap tertuduh iaitu bagi kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya yang merupakan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39B Akta yang sama. [41] Sehubungan itu, tertuduh diperintahkan untuk membela diri bagi pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) tersebut di hadapan Hakim Bicara yang sama. Keputusan Hakim Bicara meminda pertuduhan kepada kesalahan milikan di bawah seksyen 39A(2) ADB 1952 adalah diketepikan. Bertarikh 10 Mei 2021 (Dato’ Nordin bin Hassan) Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia 21 Peguamcara Perayu : Jerald Gomez (Bersamanya Michelle Wong) (Jerald Gomez Associates) Peguamcara Responden : Puan Asmah binti Musa Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (Jabatan Pendakwa Raya, Putrajaya) 22