Mahir Affandi bin Mohamad v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Mahir Affandi Bin Mohamad

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin

• The appellant was charged with trafficking and possession of methamphetamine following a police raid on a residence where he was identified as the homeowner.
• During the raid, police discovered a large quantity of drugs in a polystyrene box in one room and a smaller amount inside a sling bag, which also contained the appellant's identification card, in another room.
• The High Court convicted the appellant on both charges after finding that the prosecution established a prima facie case and that the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking.

• Whether the prosecution failed to prove the elements of possession and knowledge, specifically whether the lack of exclusive access to the premises by the appellant negated the finding of custody and control.
• Whether the integrity of the exhibits was compromised by an alleged break in the chain of custody during a media conference and minor discrepancies in the witnesses' physical descriptions of the drugs.
• Whether the appellant’s defence—attributing the drugs to a third party and alleging the drugs in the bag were planted—was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

• The Court affirmed that possession in law does not require exclusivity; the appellant’s control over the premises and the discovery of drugs in his personal bag provided a sufficient nexus to establish custody, control, and knowledge.
• The Court held that the chain of custody remained intact as the exhibits stayed under the investigating officer's supervision during the media conference, and minor discrepancies in the description of the drugs did not affect their identity or integrity.
• The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant’s defence was an improbable afterthought and that the doctrine of wilful blindness applied, as the appellant deliberately shut his eyes to the nature of items stored in his home.