Pendakwa Raya v MOHAMAD HAFIZI BIN SAAD
12 cases cited
(0 SG, 12 foreign)
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs – Self-administration of dangerous drugs – Charge under s. 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA 1952") – "Arrested person" requirement under s. 31A DDA 1952 – Whether accused must be an arrested person before urine sample may lawfully be required under s. 31A(1A) DDA 1952 – Whether arrest precedes or follows preliminary urine screening – Whether detention for enquiry or compliance with direction to provide urine sample constitutes arrest – Whether nodding in understanding when directed to provide urine sample amounts to constructive arrest – Whether question of arrest determined by particular facts and circumstances of each case – Whether breach of s. 31A(1A) DDA 1952 renders urine sample evidence inadmissible – Whether common law admission principles can overcome breach of statutory procedural requirement – Supremacy of Federal Constitution – Whether statutory procedure must be meticulously followed – Whether breach of s. 31A(1A) is mere technicality curable by common law – Whether statutory presumption under s. 37(k) DDA 1952 available where s. 31A not complied with – Articles 5 and 8 Federal Constitution – Equal protection of law irrespective of rank or status of accused CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prima facie case – Standard at close of prosecution case – Whether prosecution evidence sufficient to convict accused if he elects to remain silent – Whether reasonable doubt at close of prosecution case precludes finding of prima facie case – Chain of evidence – Identity of urine bottle – Whether discrepancies in volume of urine sample between collection and analysis undermine chain of custody – Whether conflicting evidence as to application of seal on urine bottle raises doubt as to integrity of exhibit – Whether discrepancy between preliminary screening result and pathology confirmation result is material – Whether prosecution bears burden of explaining discrepancy in drug types detected at different testing stages – Credibility of prosecution witnesses – Whether inconsistent spelling of officer's own name across contemporaneous official documents constitutes material inconsistency – Whether directly conflicting testimonies of prosecution witnesses as to physical positions during urine screening are reconcilable – Whether cumulative evidentiary deficiencies satisfy the destructive character test – Appellate intervention – Whether appellate court should disturb trial court's findings of fact and credibility – Whether findings of trial court were open to it on maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (12)
UK (1)
[1955] AC 197
MY (11)
[1964] MLJ 81 [2003] 1 CLJ 734 [2005] 1 CLJ 85 [2009] 3 CLJ 430 [2010] 2 MLJ 771 [2017] 1 CLJ 617 [2017] 7 CLJ 685 [2019] 3 CLJ 318 [2023] 2 CLJ 714 [2023] 8 CLJ 951 [2025] MLJU 2056
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ja-41lb-3-06-2025)