Calvin Low Chan Hoe v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Calvin Low Chan Hoe

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• YA Dato' Collin Lawrence Sequerah
• YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

• The appellant was arrested by a police raiding team outside a courier service office while in physical possession of five parcels containing 3,448.1 grams of methamphetamine.
• Testimony from a courier employee established that the appellant had collected the parcels by providing a reference number and signing the delivery record book with a fictitious name and identity card number.
• The appellant’s defense was that he was an "innocent carrier" hired by a third party via a gaming platform to collect what he believed were food parcels, having traveled from Kuala Lumpur to Sabah specifically for this task.

• Whether the prosecution failed to prove the element of "knowledge" of the dangerous drugs, particularly since the appellant was arrested immediately after collection without an opportunity to inspect the contents.
• Whether the investigating officer’s failure to forensically analyze the appellant’s mobile phone or successfully trace the alleged sender ("Kenny" or "Jacky") resulted in an incomplete or shoddy investigation that occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
• Whether the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was successfully rebutted by the appellant on a balance of probabilities.

• The Court held that knowledge was properly inferred from the appellant’s conduct, specifically the use of a fake identity during collection and the inherent implausibility of traveling from Kuala Lumpur to Sabah merely to collect food parcels.
• Following the principle in *Jorge Crespo Gomez v PP*, the Court ruled that the failure to investigate third parties is immaterial to the prosecution's case if the evidence is sufficient to establish the elements of the offence against the accused.
• The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking as his "innocent carrier" defense was a bare denial that did not meet the requisite burden of proof.