Mohd Hasni Bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Mohd Hasni Bin Ismail

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Dato' Sri Latifah Binti Haji Mohd Tahar

• The appellant was convicted by the High Court under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking in 49,598.3 grammes of Cannabis found in his vehicle, and was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of whipping.
• Police discovered the drugs in multiple bags in the front and rear of the appellant's vehicle, along with a strong smell of Cannabis, after he was stopped near a shopping mall.
• The appellant's defence was that he was an innocent carrier who had been engaged by a person known as "Mat John" to transport clothing, and that he was unaware the packets contained drugs.

• Whether the trial judge correctly applied the maximum evaluation test at the close of the prosecution's case and properly established possession, custody, control and knowledge.
• Whether the failure to produce CCTV recordings warranted an adverse inference under s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, and whether the "innocent carrier"/"Mat John" defence raised a reasonable doubt.
• Whether the trial judge's failure to expressly state that the appellant had failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) of the DDA rendered the conviction unsafe.

• The Court held that the prosecution had established possession, custody, control and knowledge through circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's exclusive control of the vehicle and the strong smell of Cannabis, and that the innocent carrier defence was rightly rejected as a bare denial.
• Applying the Federal Court's decision in PP v Julasiri Akilmara, the Court held there is no legal requirement for a trial judge to expressly state whether an accused is called to answer a case of direct trafficking or trafficking founded on the s 37(da) presumption, and a judgment must be read as a whole rather than isolating omitted phrases.
• The Court found no miscarriage of justice arising from the trial judge's failure to expressly state that the presumption was not rebutted, held there was no material misdirection in sentencing, and accordingly dismissed the appeal, affirming both conviction and sentence.