Abdul Syukur Bin Yahya & Anor v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Abdul Syukur Bin Yahya

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The first and second appellants (husband and wife) were jointly charged with trafficking in 143.64 grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and possession of 1.55 grams of heroin under section 12(2) of the same Act, both read with section 34 of the Penal Code (common intention).
• A police raiding team acting on intelligence surveilled the appellants' rented house, observed them alone in the living room, and upon announcing themselves as police, saw the first appellant run into a bedroom and discard packets into a toilet bowl while the second appellant tried to block the bedroom door and push the police officer.
• At trial, both appellants were convicted and the High Court sentenced each to life imprisonment and (for the male appellant) 12 strokes of whipping for trafficking, plus 3 years' imprisonment for possession, running concurrently; the appellants appealed against conviction and sentence.

• Whether the prosecution had proven custody, control and knowledge of the drugs by the appellants, and whether the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was rightly invoked and not rebutted.
• Whether the appellants' defence—that a third party ("Muri"), alleged to be a lodger/employee, was the true owner and trafficker of the drugs—met the requirements of an Alcontara-type notice and whether it raised a reasonable doubt or satisfied the Mohamad Radhi direction regarding an alternative suspect.
• Whether common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code was established between the two appellants in relation to possession and trafficking of the drugs, and the general appellate threshold for disturbing a trial judge's findings of fact and credibility.

• The Court held that the appellants' defence implicating "Muri" was an unsubstantiated and belated afterthought, as no particulars (full name, IC number, address, contact number) were given to enable police investigation, failing to constitute a valid Alcontara notice, and no such suggestion was put to the raid leader during cross-examination.
• The Court found the first appellant's act of discarding drug packets into the toilet upon the police's arrival was relevant conduct under section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 demonstrating knowledge of the drugs, and his failure to give a reasonable explanation under section 9 further undermined his defence; the second appellant's conduct in physically obstructing police further evidenced common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code.
• Applying the principle that an appellate court should not disturb a trial judge's findings absent misdirection or unsafe conviction, the Court unanimously dismissed both appeals against conviction and sentence, affirming the High Court's decision in its entirety.