Mohd Jurib Bin Mohamad Naib v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Mohd Jurib Bin Mohamad Naib

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was apprehended by police following a vehicle pursuit, after which a search of the car he was driving led to the discovery of various dangerous drugs, including 177.51 grams of methamphetamine, concealed in a sling bag and various vehicle compartments.
• Although the vehicle was registered to the appellant’s brother, testimony established that the appellant was the actual purchaser and exclusive user of the car, and forensic analysis identified the appellant’s DNA on several drug-related exhibits.
• The appellant’s defence was a total denial, claiming that a third party had borrowed the car shortly before the arrest and likely planted the drugs, and that his DNA was only present because the police forced him to handle the items after the seizure.

• Whether the High Court erred in law by improperly shifting the legal burden of proof to the appellant to negate third-party access to the vehicle, particularly in the context of a police "tip-off."
• Whether the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of possession and knowledge, given the appellant's assertion that the drugs belonged to a third party.
• Whether the act of transporting a substantial quantity of drugs is sufficient to satisfy the statutory definition of "trafficking" under section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 without evidence of further overt acts.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the prosecution had established a prima facie case of possession and knowledge through evidence of the appellant’s exclusive control of the vehicle, the concealment of the drugs, and the forensic DNA linkage.
• The Court held there was no improper shifting of the burden of proof; once the prosecution establishes possession, the evidential burden shifts to the accused to provide a plausible explanation, which the appellant failed to do by raising the third-party defence as a belated afterthought.
• The Court affirmed that the transportation of drugs in quantities far exceeding personal consumption limits constitutes trafficking under the law, and the High Court’s rejection of the defence as inherently implausible and a fabrication was correct.