Li Zhanlin v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Li Zhanlin

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin

• The appellant was charged with trafficking 1508.9 grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA) after being found with the drugs concealed on his abdomen at KLIA2.
• The High Court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of whipping, which led to the present appeal against both conviction and sentence.
• The appellant's defence, raised during his sworn testimony, was that he was an innocent carrier, believing the packets contained traditional medicine or seasoning powder, and was unaware of the true contents.

• Whether the appellant's trial counsel displayed flagrant incompetence, thereby resulting in a breach of the appellant's fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial.
• Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding that the appellant was in mens rea possession as well as in "presumed possession" of the dangerous drugs pursuant to section 37(d) of the DDA.
• Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in finding that the appellant had simultaneously committed the offence of actual trafficking under section 2 of the DDA and "presumed trafficking" under section 37(da) of the DDA.

• The Court found that the prosecution had successfully proven custody, control, and possession of the drugs by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, based on clear, consistent, and credible witness testimonies.
• The Court upheld the application of the presumption of mens rea possession under section 37(d) DDA, concluding that the deliberate concealment of a substantial quantity of drugs negated the innocent carrier defence and established knowledge and intent to traffic.
• The Court dismissed the argument regarding trial counsel's alleged incompetence, stating that any omissions would not have occasioned a miscarriage of justice given the incontrovertible fact of possession, and clarified that the Trial Judge did not make the alleged simultaneous findings of actual and presumed possession/trafficking.