TPR Norhamizah bt Ghazali v MUHAMAD KHAIRUDDIN BIN ALIM (41LB(A)-56-07/2017)

Tertuduh/Responden telah dituduh di atas satu pertuduhan di Mahkamah Majistret iaitu memasukkan dadah methamphetamine dan amphetamine ke dalam badannya tanpa kebenaran yang sah, satu kesalahan dibawah Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen yang sama.

Tertuduh/Responden telah tidak mengaku bersalah dan ingin dibicarakan. 2

Setelah mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi di peringkat kes Pendakwaan, diakhir kes Pendakwaan, Majistret telah memutuskan bahawa pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh/Responden. Justeru itu Tertuduh/Responden telah dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri.

Tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut, Pendakwa Raya telah menfailkan rayuan ke mahkamah ini.

Setelah mendengar hujahan kedua-dua pihak Mahkamah telah menolak rayuan Pendakwa Raya dan mengekalkan keputusan Majistret untuk melepas dan membebaskan Tertuduh/Responden di atas sebab teknikal. Ini adalah kerana mahkamah tertakluk kepada keputusan kes Mahkamah Rayuan ketika itu iaitu Noor Shariful Rizal B. Noor Zawawi v PP (Rayuan Jenayah No.D9-161-04/2016) yang memutuskan bahawa kegagalan pihak pendakwaan menggunakan 2 botol sampel seperti di dalam kes ini untuk proses penganalisaan air kencing adalah fatal dan keputusan mengikat semua mahkamah.

Masih tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut Pendakwaraya telah menfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan tersebut. Ini merupakan alasan-alasan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah mengenai rayuan ini.

Sementara itu, berdasarkan seksyen 50 (2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, Pendakwa Raya ada mengemukakan beberapa 3 persoalan undang-undang seperti dibawah. Tiada “leave” diperlukan bagi rayuan daripada Pendakwa Raya.

Persoalan undang-undang adalah seperti berikut:

Samada Perintah Tetap Ketua Polis Negara F103 Akta Penagih Dadah (Rawatan & Pemulihan 1983) adalah satu undang-undang prosedur dan mempunyai kuat kuasa undang-undang

(ii) Samada Perintah Tetap Ketua Polis Negara F103 Akta Penagih Dadah (Rawatan & Pemulihan 1983) berkuat kuasa dan terpakai untuk pengambilan sampel air kencing bagi kes di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, walaupun kedua-duanya adalah undang-undang yang berbeza;

(iii) Samada ketidakpatuhan terhadap Perintah Tetap Ketua Polis Negara F103 Akta Penagih Dadah (Rawatan & Pemulihan 1983) terjumlah kepada perlanggaran kepada undang-undang prosedur dan is mengakibatkan kegagalan keadilan yang serius;

(iv) Samada ketidakpatuhan terhadap Perintah Tetap Ketua Polis Negara F103 Akta Penagih Dadah (Rawatan & Pemulihan 1983) mempengaruhi kebolehterimaan sampel air kencing yang diambil walhal rantaian keterangan dan kawalan tidak terputus dan tiada keraguan berkenaan identiti sampel tersebut 4 B. PERTUDUHAN “Bahawa kamu pada 1/1/2016 lebih kurang jam 0304 pagi bertempat di Balai Polis Pengkalan Chepa, Di dalam Daerah Kota Bharu, Di dalam Negeri Kelantan, telah memberikan kepada diri kamu sendiri dadah berbahaya jenis Amphetamine dan Methamphetamine. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Akta yang sama dan dibacakan bersama Seksyen 38B Akta yang sama.” C. FAKTA KES PENDAKWAAN [9] Pada 1.1.2016 jam Iebih kurang 0015hrs, SP2 mengetuai satu pasukan JSJN IPK Kelantan telah nampak 3 lelaki Melayu dalam keadaan mencurigakan di hadapan sebuah rumah tanpa nombor di Kampung Telok Panji, Kota Bharu, Kelantan. [10] SP2 memperkenalkan diri sebagai Pegawai Kanan Polis dan semua 3 lelaki Melayu ini terus melarikan diri namun berjaya ditahan. Semua 3 lelaki Melayu ini (termasuk OKT) kemudiannya dibawa ke Balai Polis Pengkalan Chepa. [11] Ujian saringan awal kemudiannya dilakukan di mana OKT dan 2 lagi lelaki Melayu diminta untuk mengambil sendiri sampel urin masing-masing menggunakan botol yang dipilih sebelum itu dengan disaksikan oleh SP2 dan dibantu oleh 2 orang anggota polis. 5 [12] Hasil ujian saringan awal mendapati sampel urin OKT positif dadah jenis Amphetamine. OKT kemudiannya diarahkan untuk menutup kembali botol urin tersebut dan botol tersebut seteusnya di meterai (sealed) dan ditandakan. [13] Sampel urin ini kemudiannya di hantar ke Makmal Dadah Jabatan Patologi Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II Kota Bharu untuk analisa lanjut. [14] SP4 memberikan keterangan bahawa sampel urin ini telah dianalisa dan hasil analisa mendapati ianya mengandungi dadah jenis Amphetamine dan Methamphetamine. D. ALASAN MAHKAMAH INI [15] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti keputusan kes Noor Shariful Rizal tersebut seperti mana dilaporkan di dalam Current Law Journal sebagai Noor Shariful Rizal bin Noor Zawawi vs PP (2017) 4 CLJ 434, (Mahkamah Rayuan). [16] Perlu ditekankan bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan ini mengikat semua Mahkamah bawahannya berdasarkan prinsip stare-decisis, termasuk rayuan ini. Mahkamah ini terpaksa akur dengan keputusan tersebut. [17] Berdasarkan keputusan Noor Shariful Rizal ini, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa 2 Arahan Pentadbiran ataupun garis panduan yang 6 selama ini Mahkamah-Mahkamah telah memutuskan sebaliknya, adalah mempunyai kuatkuasa undang-undang dan adalah terpakai yang mana secara amnya menghendaki penggunaan 2 botol sampel air kencing bagi maksud penganalisaan bagi membuktikan kesalahan dibawah Seksyen 15(1)(a) ADB 1952. [18] Kedua-dua Arahan Pentadbiran tersebut adalah “Arahan Tetap Ketua Polis Negara F103 (PTKPN)” dan “Garis Panduan Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia Bil 6/2002” yang mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan bahawa ia mempunyai status kuatkuasa undang-undang dan mandatori untuk dipatuhi. [19] Di dalam kes tersebut, Mahkamah Rayuan telah merujuk kepada kedua-dua garis panduan tersebut seperti dibawah: “[24] The IGSO F103 relates to the obligation of suspected drug dependants to submit himself and to undergo the test procedures. The title of the IGSO F130 and its introduction reads as follows: PTKPN F103 (IGSO F103) Akta Penagih Dadah (Rawatan Dan Pemulihan) 1983

Pendahuluan Akta Penagih Dadah (Rawatan dan Pemulihan) 1983 (Pindaan 1998) digubal bertujuan untuk memberi rawatan dan pemulihan kepada penagih-penagih dadah. Selain merupakan proses rawatan lanjutan 7 yang menitikberatkan pengawasan ke atas penagih-penagih bertujuan memastikan mereka tidak mengulangi tabiat penagihan mereka. PTKPN ini adalah bertujuan untuk memastikan segala tindakan ke atas orang-orang kenaan dilakukan mengikut peruntukan-peruntukan yang ditetapkan di bawah Akta ini. … … …

Tatacara Mengambil Contoh Air Kencing Tatacara pengambilan contoh air kencing dari penagih-penagih yang disyaki adalah seperti berikut:

8.1 Contoh Air Kencing Diambil Segera Selepas Tangkapan Contoh air kencing dari penagih-penagih yang disyaki hendaklah diambil seberapa segera sebaik sahaja selepas tangkapan bagi menentukan keberkesanan ujian.

8.2 Pemilihan 2 Buah Botol Oleh Penagih Yang Disyaki Setiap penagih dadah yang disyaki HENDAKLAH diberi sebanyak dua buah botol plastik kosong yang dikhaskan serta baru dan belum pernah digunakan lengkap dengan penutupnya. Penagih berkenaan hendaklah diberi peluang memilih sendiri botol-botol plastik tersebut daripada kotak simpanannya serta ia berpuas hati dengan botol-botol tersebut berkeadaan bersih dan boleh digunakan. Sebuah botol air kencing adalah untuk tujuan ujian 8 awal di peringkat polis jika perlu dan sebuah lagi untuk dihantar ke hospital bagi penganalisaan (emphasis added). [25] The full text of the IGSO F103 can be found in Tab 1 of the appellant’s bundle of authorities. [20] Bagi garis panduan Kementerian Kesihatan pula, Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: [26] The KKM Guidelines Bilangan 6/2002 was issued by Bahagian Perkembangan Perubatan Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia. Its title and introduction read as follows: Garis Panduan Bagi Ujian Pengesanan Penyalahgunaan Dadah Dalam Air Kencing Guidelines For Testing Drugs Abuse In Urine Introduction a) This guidelines is intended to be used by all agencies involved in the National Drug Detection Programme and is not applicable to clinical testing; b) It describes procedures that shall fulfil the necessary criteria in order to guarantee optimum validity of drug detection results; c) Consideration shall be given to the procedures for collection, transportation, analysis, reporting of results, dispatching of results and storage of samples and records; 9 d) This guideline shall be read together with the “Manual For The Laboratory Detection of Drugs of Abuse in Urine and Guidelines on Cold Turkey Detoxification and Treatment” 1988. Wherever there is any discrepancy of the fact, the present guidelines shall be referred; [27] The relevant part of “KKM Guidelines Bilangan 6/2002” which was drawn to our attention is item (c) collection procedure. It reads as follows:

Collection Procedure

At least 30 ml urine sample SHALL be collected in one bottle or duplicate if screening and confirmation are done in two different places. The requesting officer/referring centre shall keep the second urine sample and shall send the urine sample to the confirmation centre if the screening result is positive;

(ii) Both the collection personnel and the donor shall keep the urine samples in view at all times prior to it being sealed or labelled. If the second bottle cannot be provided (sample is 30 ml only), testing shall be done on the first sample. Absence of second sample shall be recorded;

(iii) At the collection site, if the volume is less than 30 ml, the donor may be given a reasonable amount of liquid to drink e.g. 240 ml of water every 30 minutes, but not 10 to exceed a maximum of 720 ml. The second urine sample shall be collected and mixed with the previous sample, by the donor himself/herself or the collection personnel in front of the donor (emphasis added). [28] The full text of “KKM Guidelines Bilangan 6/2002” can be found in Tab J in the appellant’s bundle of authorities.” [21] Mahkamah Rayuan telah membuat dapatan seperti berikut: “[38] Now, we come to consider whether the IGSO F103 has the force of law. We refer to the Federal Court case of Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v. PP [1983] 2 CLJ 10; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 101; [1983] 2 MLJ 272 at p. 109 (CLJ); p. 272 (MLJ) where the issue of an admissibility of police station diaries was made an issue. In his submission the Public Prosecutor contended that: … the station diaries are kept by virtue of administrative orders called Standing Orders made by the Inspector-General of Police under section 97 of the Police Act, 1967. [39] There are several standing orders covering various police jobs such as the maintenance of station diaries, the procedure to hold an identification parade in criminal cases which are regulated by the IGSO Part D 226, and the procedure to collect urine samples from suspected drug dependants which is housed in the IGSO F103. The standing orders made by the Inspector General of Police, which 11 necessarily include the IGSO F103 acquires its statutory power from s. 97 of the Police Act 1967. Therefore, it has the force of law. [40] The KKM Guidelines Bilangan 6/2002 under the caption “urine collection” has made reference to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The scheme of the KKM Guidelines Bilangan 6/2002 was formulated in collaboration with the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and also the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983. [41] Section 31 of the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 provides: The Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is amended by inserting immediately after s. 38 new ss. 38A and 38B as follows: Powers of Court in respect of drug dependants below the age of eighteen 38A(1) Where any person below the age of eighteen years is found guilty of an offence against this Act other than in the case of an offence under section 6B or 39B or other than in a case where a person is found guilty of an offence against this Act for which the punishment shall be under section 39A, the Court shall consider a report of a Rehabilitation Officer as defined in the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 [Act 283] and if the Court is satisfied that such person is a drug dependant as certified by a government medical officer 12 and that having regard to the circumstances of the case and the character, antecedents, health or mental condition of the person charged it is inexpedient to inflict the punishment provided, the Court may, with or without recording a conviction: a) release the offender and order him to reside at a Rehabilitation Centre for a period of two years to undergo treatment and rehabilitation, and immediately thereafter to under after-care in accordance with the provisions of the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983; and b) order the offender to be placed under the supervision of a Rehabilitation Officer for a period of not less than two and not more than three years, and to execute a bond with or without sureties, as the Court may determine, to remain under such supervision for such period: Provided that where such person fails to execute such bond, an order under paragraph (a) shall be made against him by the Court.

Where an order under paragraph (1)(a) is made against an offender, it shall be deemed to be an order made by a Magistrate under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the 13 Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983, and where the order is made under paragraph

(1)(b), it shall be deemed to be an order made by the Magistrate under paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Act, and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly in relation to such order. Powers of Court in respect of person found guilty under section 15 38B(1) Where a person is found guilty or an offence under section 15, he shall immediately after having undergone the punishment imposed upon him in respect thereof, undergo supervision by a Rehabilitation Officer as defined under subsection 2(2) of the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 for a period of not less than two and not more than three years as may be determined by the Rehabilitation Officer.

A person who is required to undergo supervision by a Rehabilitation Officer under subsection (1), shall be deemed to have been placed under such supervision by virtue of an order made by a Magistrate under paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983, and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly in relation to such supervision. (emphasis added) 14 [42] Thus, s. 31 of the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 must be read conjointly with ss. 38A and 38B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Therefore, the KKM Guidelines Bilangan 6/2002 which is formulated in line with both of the aforesaid Acts and therefore it has the force of law. [43] Similarly, the IGSO F103 was also formulated with its objective “bertujuan untuk memastikan segala tindakan ke atas orang-orang kenaan dilakukan mengikut peruntukan-peruntukan yang ditetapkan di bawah Akta ini.” This Act (Akta ini) refers to the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983. Therefore, arguably the IGSO F103, like KKM Guidelines Bilangan 6/2002, is also has the force of law, quite apart from acquiring its statutory power under s. of the Police Act 1967. [22] Di para 48, Mahkamah Rayuan mengingatkan bahawa Tertuduh telah hilang peluang mengenai ujian pengesahan penganalisaan kerana satu botol sahaja digunakan. Mahkamah Rayuan berkata: “[48] We were, however, in agreement with learned counsel that the appellant had lost the opportunity for a confirmation test as only one bottle of urine sample was collected from the appellant, whilst the IGSO F103 and KKM Guidelines Bilangan 6/2002 require two bottles of urine sample be taken. In the field of sports at international level, the taking of two bottles of urine sample from athlete or sportsman/sportswoman is consistent with the World Anti-Doping 15 Code. According to an article entitled “International Convention Against Doping In Sport” (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ social-and-human-sciences/themes/anti-doping/international-conventionagainst-doping-in-sport/), it was written inter alia: Taking the sample The sample is then split between two bottles labelled A and B with a unique sample code number. The Doping Control Officer provides the athlete with instructions on how to inspect the sample collection kit, distribute the sample between the A and B bottles, secure the samples and complete the paperwork. The sample shipping All samples are sent to a WADA accredited laboratories.” [23] Mahkamah Rayuan juga memberi ingatan bahawa didalam kes ini Tertuduh telah juga dinafikan haknya dari segi undang-undang prosedur dengan kegagalan pihak berkuasa menggunakan 2 botol sampel. Mahkamah Rayuan menegaskan di para 50: “[50] The appellant was deprived of the procedural law which gives him of the right of a second test – confirmation test. The Magistrate and learned JC, by ruling that one bottle of the appellant’s urine sample was sufficient, was contrary to the IGSO F103 and the KKM Guidelines Bilangan 6/2002. The appellant, accordingly, did not have 16 a fair trial and arts. 5(1) and 8(1) were violated. The appellant did not get what the procedural law said he should get. He had lost a chance of being acquitted which was reasonably opened to him. Thus justice has been miscarried - commonly called “miscarriage of justice”. Justice is justice in accordance with law as enshrined in arts. 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution. The High Court case of Australia in Mraz v. The Queen [1955] 93 CLR 493 was referred to by Gopal Sri Ram FCJ in Lee Kwan Woh, supra, where Fullagar J said at p. 514 in the following terms: … every accused person is entitled to a trial in which the relevant law is correctly explained to the jury and the rules of procedures and evidence are strictly followed. If there is any failure in any of these respects, and the appellant may thereby have lost a chance which was fairly opened to him of being acquitted, there is, in the eye of the law, a miscarriage of justice. Justice has miscarried in such cases, because the appellant has not had what the law says that he shall have, and justice is justice according to law. (emphasis added).” [24] Mahkamah ini telah mendengar rayuan ini dan membuat keputusan pada 5/4/2018. Keputusan kes Noor Shariful Rizal telah diputuskan pada 22 Februari 2017. Justeru itu ketika keputusan kes ini dibuat, Mahkamah ini terikat dengan keputusan Noor Shariful Rizal, dan telah melepas dan membebaskan Tertuduh memandangkan tidak ada undang-undang lain atau keputusan kes Mahkamah atasan lain yang memutuskan sebaliknya, atau mengatasi keputusan tersebut. 17 E. KESIMPULAN [24] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas yang bersandarkan kepada keputusan kes Noor Shariful Rizal (supra), Tertuduh telah dilepas dan dibebaskan oleh Mahkamah ini. [25] Mengenai soalan undang-undang yang dikemukakan, ianya telah terjawab dengan keputusan kes Noor Shariful Rizal ini. Bertarikh: 30 Jun 2018 (DATO’ AHMAD BIN BACHE) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu Kelantan. 18 Pihak-Pihak: Pendakwa Raya/ Perayu: TPR Norhamizah bt Ghazali Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Blok 5, Tingkat Bawah, Kota Darulnaim, 15050 Kota Bharu, Kelantan Peguamcara Tertuduh/ Responden: En. Ahmad Nurie bin Ab. Rahman Tetuan Nurie Khairuddin & Co, PT 163, Aras 1, Jalan Dusun Muda, 15400 Kota Bharu, Kelantan.