Abdullah Fuad Mareai Al Katheri v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Abdullah Fuad Mareai Al Katheri

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

• YAA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril

• The appellant was arrested during a police raid where access cards and keys to a separate apartment were found in his possession; he subsequently informed the police of the presence of "illegal goods" at that location.
• The appellant led the police to the apartment, used his keys to grant entry, and personally handed over an aluminum container containing 208.20 grams of cannabis found in the bedroom.
• The High Court convicted the appellant of drug trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, finding that the prosecution had proven custody, control, and knowledge of the drugs.

• Whether the prosecution sufficiently established "possession" (encompassing custody, control, and knowledge) in light of the appellant's defense that the premises were shared with a girlfriend who also had access.
• Whether the information leading to the discovery of the drugs was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950, despite the absence of a contemporaneous written record and an alleged language barrier.
• Whether the appellant’s actions in leading the police to the apartment and handing over the drugs constituted relevant "conduct" under Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950.

• The Court affirmed that "information" under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 is broader than a "statement" and includes the knowledge derived by the police; thus, a contemporaneous written record is not a mandatory prerequisite for admissibility.
• The Court held that the appellant’s act of leading the police to the specific location and handing over the drugs established the requisite animus possidendi and knowledge, effectively rebutting the defense of non-exclusive possession.
• The Court ruled that the appellant’s actions were admissible as relevant "conduct" under Section 8(2) of the Evidence Act 1950, which serves as independent evidence of guilt regardless of whether a statutory caution was administered.