8.3 Hakim meletakkan beban terlalu tinggi terhadap pembelaan apabila Hakim bicara memerlukan pembelaan memanggil saksi-saksi untuk menyokong pembelaan. Walhal pembelaan hanya perlu menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah sahaja. [9] Isu pertama “Perayu tiada pengetahuan”. Perayu dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa “Maurine” dan rakan-rakannya menawarkan pekerjaan mengenai “ice”. Fahaman Perayu ianya mengenai air batu minuman (rujuk baris terakhir m.s. Rekod Rayuan Jld. 2). Perayu juga telah mengemukakan Percakapan Beramaran beliau di bawah seksyen 113 Kanun Acara Jenayah (eksibit D83 m.s. Rekod Rayuan Jld. 3B). Perayu menyatakan mengenai perjumpaan Perayu dengan “Maurine” dan empat orang lelaki. 9 “…I meet Maurine and 4 other men in her group. That was when they started to tell me about this “ice” business. That time I thought they are referring to the normal ice. They tell me to go to Malaysia to deliver the items to someone else. After that they bring the ice and show it to me, they also tell me that I need to swallow the ice. I refuse to do that because I don’t know what was it. They told me I have to wait for their boss to come from Nigeria. Their boss arrived on 11 November 2013.” Di muka surat 209 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 3B: “…After I agree, and I said I will try…it looks like a capsule… The total are 80…one of them pull their gun and point it to my head. I manage to swallow around 30 capsules. I sleep a while….they put additional oil to make it easier for me to swallow..there were about 8 to 10 pieces left...it was too big…they force it inside my body through my anal…they give me the contact number that I should contact when I reach Malaysia, but I don’t remember the number… They will reward with 3,000.00 U.S dollar…when we were almost approaching Bangkok, my stomach start aching. I went to the toilet and …3 pieces came out. I took it and keep it in my pants. [10] Dapatan Hakim bicara mengenai “pengetahuan” dapat dilihat di para 22 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 1 di mana Hakim bicara tidak bergantung kepada anggapan statutori seksyen 37(d) ADB 1952. Hakim bicara bergantung kepada keterangan ikut keadaan iaitu tingkah laku Perayu kelihatan gelisah dan berpeluh. Semasa disoal oleh SP16, Perayu mengaku dia membawa “ice” di dalam seluar dalamnya tetapi tidak memberitahu tentang kapsul-kapsul yang sama tetapi ditelan. Apabila ditanya oleh SP16 kenapa perut Perayu kelihatan kembung, Perayu menyatakan dia sedang mengandung. Apabila ujian air kencing dilakukan di Hospital Serdang, mengesahkan Perayu tidak mengandung. Selain itu, Hakim bicara juga memutuskan 10 bahawa dadah-dadah yang ditelan dalam bentuk kapsul tidak boleh hadham menunjukkan pengetahuan Perayu. [11] Dalam kes Teh Hock Leong v PP [2008] 4 CLJ: “…we agree with the learned trial judge that the method employed to bring the drugs in question from Thailand into Malaysia was done in a most cunning fashion to escape detection by the authorities. The method employed to convey or transport a drug may sometimes furnish evidence of knowledge. For example, an attempt to carefully conceal a drug may indicate an intention to avoide detection and thereby point to knowledge…” [12] Dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan PP v Herlina Purnama Sari [2017] 1 MLRA 499 diputuskan: “[42] In our judgment that the manner in which the impugned drugs were concealed in two boxes which were found in the Respondent’s luggage goes to show that the Respondent knew the contents of the two boxes. It is not enough for the Respondent to merely assert absence of knowledge. …………… [46] Most of cases where the concept was held to apply concerned cases in which the accused was asked to carry certain articles, or a package or a bag, or to swallow certain items. In these circumstances, would arouse the suspicion of a reasonable person as to the contents, it was upon the accused person to make sufficient inquiries so as to dispel or set straight such suspicions. Should the accused not make any inquiries under those circumstances, the concept of wilfull blindness would apply so as to fasten upon him or her the necessary knowledge as to the nature of those contacts. In other words, if he deliberately shut his eyes as to the obvious, because he doesn’t want to know, he is taken to know.” 11 [13] Kami bersetuju bahawa Hakim bicara khilaf dalam penghakiman beliau di para 35 m.s. 23 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 1 di mana Hakim bicara secara sambil lalu menyatakan beban pembelaan untuk mengakas anggapan undang-undang di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB 1952 mengenai “pengetahuan”. [14] Pada hemat kami adalah jelas hakim bicara tidak mengguna pakai seksyen 37(d) ADB 1952 di akhir kes Pendakwaan. “Affirmative finding” Hakim bicara adalah jelas bahawa “mens rea possession” telah dibuktikan tanpa menggunakan seksyen 37(d) ADB 1952 (rujuk para 22 Penghakiman m.s. 16 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 1). Hakim bicara juga tidak membuat apa-apa dapatan sama ada anggapan statutori seksyen 37(d) ADB 1952 telah diakas ataupun tidak atas imbangan kebarangkalian. [15] Justeru Hakim bicara membuat “affirmative finding” di para 37 Penghakiman beliau (m.s. 25 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 1) bahawa pembelaan gagal menimbulkan sebarang keraguan yang munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan. Ini selari dengan dapatan beliau di akhir kes pendakwaan di para 22 Penghakiman beliau (m.s. 16 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 1). [16] Kekhilafan ini tidak membawa kepada “substantial miscarriage of justice” seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 60(i) Courts of Judicature Act 1964: “Provided that the Court of Appeal may, notwithstanding that it is of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the Appellant, dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred.” 12 [17] Kami juga merujuk kepada kes Mohd Johi Said & anor v PP [2005] ICLJ 389 di mana pada m.s. 397 para (d) menyatakan: “unlike civil appeals, where the appellant carries the burden of showing that the judge at first, instance went wrong, in a criminal case the duty of the court is to consider whether the conviction is right. The correct approach is therefore not whether the decision is wrong but whether the conviction is safe.” [18] Isu kedua mengenai pembelaan “duress” di bawah seksyen 94 Kanun Keseksaan tidak diberi pertimbangan yang sewajarnya oleh Hakim bicara. Peguam Perayu merujuk kepada para 41 dan 42 Penghakiman Hakim bicara di m.s. 26 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 1. Kami bersetuju Hakim bicara tidak menilai dan mengolah pembelaan “duress” di bawah seksyen 94 Kanun Keseksaan iaitu satu pembelaan penuh (complete defence). [19] Kami telah merujuk kepada hujah bertulis Peguam bela di m.s. (akhir kes pendakwaan) dan m.s. 64 (akhir kes pembelaan) Rekod Rayuan Jld. 4. Peguam bela hanya berhujah secara ringkas mengenai “ugutan” yang dikatakan sebagai “duress.” Peguam bela tidak merujuk kepada seksyen 94 Kanun Keseksaan. [20] Walau bagaimanapun, kami telah meneliti semula keterangan mengenai “duress” dan menilai sama ada ugutan tersebut memenuhi syarat yang ditetapkan oleh undang-undang. Menurut prinsip undang-undang dalam kes Tan Seng Ann v PP [1948] 1 LNS 67: 13 “a plea of duress under section 94 penal Code must be imminent, extreme and persistent at the time of the commission of the Offence.” [21] Manakala dalam kes Chu Tuck Fai v PP [1998] 4 MLJ 266: “…his right to plead duress might be lost if the Appellant failed to take steps to remove the threat by seeking police protection.” [22] Dalam kes Mohamed Yusof v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 167 pula: “…He had been carrying the drug for about one and a half hours and had made no attempt to approach any member of the public or police authorities for help. In short he had completed his mission except for the handing over the drugs to the Thai who was according to him also at the station platform and collect the RM400.00 from him. In the circumstances it is my considered judgment that there is nothing to suggest that when the appellant placed the bags on the platform and went to purchase the ticket, such duress was present, or continued to be present.” [23] Daripada keterangan lisan Perayu di m.s. 188 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 2, Perayu menyatakan: “One of them took a pistol and pointed on my head. He said that I have 2 options at the moment, you either take the job or die. …fear of the pistol, I said I will try. m.s. 191 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 2 pula: I was doing to do protect my family. 14 m.s. 194 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 2 smasa Pemeriksaan balas oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya: I agree that my family would be killed by now… if I failed to deliver the drugs. There was a report about my first son being kidnapped in Kenya. m.s. 195 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 2 semasa pemeriksaan Semula oleh Peguambela: I accepted because my son had been kidnapped and nowhere to be found.” [24] Dalam Percakapan Beramaran eksibit D83 m.s. 209 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 3, Perayu menyatakan: “One of them pull their gun and point it to my head. They told me again if I didn’t do it I will die.” [25] Kami bersependapat bahawa keterangan di atas tidak memenuhi pra syarat undang-undang yang dihuraikan di atas. Isu ini juga ditolak sebagai tidak bermerit. [26] Isu ketiga, Hakim bicara meletakkan beban terlalu tinggi ke atas pembelaan, apabila memerlukan keterangan pembuktian menyokong pembelaan. Peguam Perayu merujuk kepada para 41 Penghakiman Hakim bicara: “Perayu juga telah menyatakan bahawa dia telah diugut oleh Maurine dan 4 orang lelaki semasa di Hotel Joba untuk menerima pekerjaan ini. Namun, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa keterangan Perayu adalah meragukan juga kerana Perayu 15 tidak mempunyai apa-apa untuk menyokong versi pembelaannya yang ini. Perayu tidak langsung memasukkan sebarang laporan polis yang menyatakan Perayu telah menerima ugutan mati jika gagal menghantar dadah berbahaya ke Malaysia.” [27] Kami juga menolak hujah ini. Jika dilihat secara keseluruhan Penghakiman Hakim bicara, beliau menilai keterangan pembelaan dari segi kredibiliti Perayu sebagai seorang saksi. Ini dapat dilihat di para 48 penghakiman (m.s. 29 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 1) di mana Hakim bicara menganalisis keterangan perayu: “[48] Kenyataan ini juga (iaitu dalam Percakapan Beramaran, Perayu akan dibayar upah tugasan USD3,000.00) bercanggah dengan keterangan Perayu semasa di Mahkamah di mana Perayu telah menyatakan bahawa jumlah USD3,000.00 adalah jumlah wang yang perlu dibayar oleh Perayu kepada Maurine dan rakan-rakannya sekiranya gagal menyerahkan ketulan-ketulan kapsul tersebut kepada seseorang di Malaysia. Berdasarkan kepada kenyataan yang bercanggah tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Perayu bukanlah merupakan seorang saksi yang kredible kerana keterangannya di Mahkamah bercanggah dengan keterangannya sendiri dalam kenyataan beramaran Perayu sendiri.” [28] Kes tersohor PP v Ling Tee Huah [1982] 2 MLJ 234 memutuskan prinsip “a mere denial without other proof to reasonably dislodge the prosecution’s evidence is not sufficient.” [29] Mengenai isu pihak ketiga tuan punya dadah, kami merujuk kes Teng Howe Sing v PP [2009] 3 CLJ 733, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memperakui penghakiman kes PP v Badrulsham bin Baharom [1988] 2 MLJ 585: 16 “[32] …Appellant’s failure to provide relevant information about “Ho Seng” for the police to carry out a thorough investigation in the probability of his defence, entitled the learned trial judge to disbelieve him” (Penekanan ditambah). [30] Kami bersetuju dengan dapatan Hakim bicara di para 51 Penghakiman (m.s. 30 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 1) bahawa pembelaan telah gagal menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan. Adalah menjadi undang-undang mantap bahawa keraguan munasabah (reasonable doubt) mestilah “real doubt not fanciful or imaginary doubt.” [PP v Saimin & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ 16] [31] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, kami menolak rayuan sebagai tidak bermerit. Keterangan adalah kukuh (overwhelming). Sabitan adalah selamat. Justeru sabitan dan hukuman hakim bicara disahkan. t.t. MOHTARUDIN BIN BAKI 28 Januari 2019 Counsel: Pihak Perayu : Messrs. Fadhly Yaacob & Co. Peguambela & Peguamcara No. 26K Taman Wira Mergong 05150 Alor Setar Kedah. 17 Pihak Responden : Ahmad Sazilee bin Abdul Khairi & Mohd Zain bin Ibrahim Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Jabatan Peguam Negara Putrajaya