Ng Mee Yee & Anor v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s):

• Ng Mee Yee
• Ho King Lim

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YAA Tun Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh
• YA Dato' Collin Lawrence Sequerah
• YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar

• The two appellants, a couple, were charged jointly with drug trafficking under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 after police discovered 777.3 grams of methamphetamine hidden in a wardrobe of a service apartment unit they had recently moved into.
• The appellants' defence was that they had recently relocated to the unit through a rental agent, that the unit already contained other occupants' clothing, and that they had no knowledge of the drugs found on the top shelf of the wardrobe.
• Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal convicted the appellants, invoking the presumption of possession under s 37(d) of the DDA, finding common intention under s 34 of the Penal Code, and initially imposing the death sentence, which the Court of Appeal later substituted with life imprisonment (30 years) and whipping for the second appellant following the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023.

• Whether the trial judge impermissibly invoked a "double presumption" by using the presumption of possession under s 37(d) of the DDA to trigger the presumption of trafficking under s 37(da), contrary to the principle in Muhammed bin Hassan v PP and Alma Nudo Atenza v PP.
• Whether the non-calling of a material witness (the rental agent) and the admission of his police statement under s 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code, via s 32(1)(i) of the Evidence Act 1950, was proper given his departure from Malaysia.
• Whether the investigation was "shoddy" due to the absence of fingerprint and DNA evidence, such that the appellants should receive the benefit of the doubt.

• The Court held that no double presumption was invoked; the trial judge relied solely on s 37(d) of the DDA for possession and knowledge, and separately found the elements of trafficking (keeping/concealing) were satisfied under the substantive definition in s 2 of the DDA, without resorting to s 37(da).
• The Court affirmed that the rental agent was not a material witness, his absence from Malaysia was properly established, and his s 112 statement was rightly admitted; the absence of fingerprint/DNA evidence did not render the investigation shoddy or incomplete, as there is no rule of law mandating such evidence and ample other evidence linked the appellants to the drugs.
• The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, affirming both the conviction based on exclusive possession, knowledge, and common intention, and the Court of Appeal's substituted sentence of life imprisonment (30 years) with whipping for the second appellant.