Li Gui Tao v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Li Gui Tao

Respondent(s):

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

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Tuan Muniandy a/l Kannyappan

• The appellant, a Chinese national, was charged in the High Court with trafficking in 183.73 grams of methamphetamine under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and with possession of 15.99 grams of Etizolam under s 30(3) of the Poisons Act 1952, both discovered in a car at a shopping mall car park.
• The appellant's defence was that he had merely borrowed the car from a friend shortly before the arrest, and that a third party ("Ms Chan") who had earlier rented the car was the real owner/trafficker of the drugs, such that he lacked knowledge or exclusive control over them.
• The trial judge invoked the presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 at the close of the prosecution case, and ultimately convicted the appellant on both charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment for trafficking and three years' imprisonment for possession of the poison.

• Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant had exclusive possession and knowledge of the drugs found in a borrowed car, despite evidence of prior third-party access.
• Whether the trial judge, having invoked the statutory presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) at the close of the prosecution's case, erred at the end of the defence case by failing to determine whether the appellant had rebutted that presumption on a balance of probabilities, instead assessing the case on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether such a misdirection on the burden of proof constitutes a fundamental procedural defect incapable of being cured by the proviso to s 60(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

• The Court held that the trial judge committed a plain misdirection of law by failing to assess whether the appellant had rebutted the s 37(da) presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities, and instead erroneously applied the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard to the defence's rebuttal, rendering the trafficking conviction unsafe.
• The Court held that this misdirection on the burden of proof was a fundamental breach of the right to a fair trial that could not be saved by the proviso to s 60(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as it amounted to a systemic failure of judicial evaluation rather than a mere technical irregularity.
• The Court set aside the conviction under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and substituted it with a conviction for possession under s 12(2), punishable under s 39A(2), sentencing the appellant to 8 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest; the conviction and sentence under s 30(3) of the Poisons Act 1952 were upheld, with both sentences to run concurrently.