Latif Ma v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Latif Ma

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant, together with two other accused, was charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 34 of the Penal Code for trafficking in 9029.6 grams of methamphetamine found in a bag in the boot of a car.
• At the close of the prosecution case, the High Court acquitted the two co-accused for want of a prima facie case, but ordered the appellant to enter his defence.
• The appellant's defence was that he was merely handed temporary control of the car by two acquaintances (who allegedly alighted to use the toilet) and had no knowledge of the drugs in the boot; the High Court rejected this defence, convicted him, and sentenced him to life imprisonment (with whipping exempted due to his age).

• Whether the trial judge erred in applying the statutory presumption of possession and knowledge under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, given case law holding that a vehicle cannot be "anything whatsoever containing" drugs for purposes of that presumption.
• Whether the appellant, even if only a momentary user of the vehicle, had sufficient custody or control over the bag containing the drugs to attract the presumption of possession.
• Whether there was direct evidence establishing the act of trafficking (concealing, carrying, keeping, or transporting drugs) as defined under section 2 of the Act.

• The Court held that the trial judge had correctly directed the presumption under section 37(d) at the canvas bag containing the drugs, not the car itself, and thus there was no misdirection in law on this point.
• The Court found no basis to disturb the trial judge's factual findings—made with the benefit of audio-visual assessment—that the appellant had exclusive use of the car at the material time and had custody and control of the bag, particularly given inconsistencies in the defence (the identity of the alleged actual driver changed between the prosecution and defence stages) and the appellant's failure to raise the existence of the two other individuals at the earliest opportunity.
• The Court agreed that the large quantity of drugs supported an inference of trafficking rather than personal consumption, and accordingly dismissed the appeal, affirming both the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment.