Leong Kee Yen v Public Prosecutor & Anor

Appellant(s): Leong Kee Yen

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• Two appellants, a woman and a man, were each convicted under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking in methamphetamine (1529.5g and 1538.8g respectively) after being intercepted at a customs scanner machine at KLIA2, with drug packages found strapped to their thighs and calves.
• Both were sentenced to life imprisonment and 30 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest; the male appellant additionally received 12 strokes of whipping, while the female appellant was exempted from whipping under section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
• Both appellants raised similar defences, claiming they were recruited via the social media application WeChat by an unidentified person known as "Sky" to carry what they believed were traditional medicines to South Korea, and were coerced into strapping the packages to their bodies.

• Whether the trial judge failed to properly consider the defence's account regarding the involvement of "Sky" as the real trafficker, and whether this raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.
• Whether the failure of the investigating authorities to conduct further investigation into the identity of "Sky" prejudiced the appellants' defence.
• Whether the "innocent carrier" doctrine or the principle in Mohamad Radhi bin Yaakob v PP (that another person may be the true trafficker) applied to rebut the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

• The Court held that the appellants' defences were mere bare denials shifting blame onto an unidentified "Sky", and were inherently improbable given neither appellant knew or had ever met "Sky" prior to the incident.
• Applying the doctrine of wilful blindness, the Court found both appellants were not innocent carriers as they had the opportunity and time to inspect the packages strapped to their bodies but failed to do so, and were thus taken to have known the packages contained drugs.
• The Court held the appellants failed to identify "Sky" with sufficient particularity (no name, address, or means of contact) to enable further police investigation, and failed on a balance of probabilities to rebut the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; the appeals were unanimously dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed.