Nobri bin Ramli v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Nobri Bin Ramli

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was convicted by the High Court for drug trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA 1952) involving 64.36g of methamphetamine, and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of whipping.
• The prosecution's case alleged the appellant was arrested in a "hot spot" area, attempting to flee, with a sling bag containing the drugs, a digital scale, and personal documents.
• The appellant's defence claimed he was arrested at home, not on the street, and denied knowledge or possession of the drugs, asserting they were found in a shoebox in his room and that others had access to the house.

• Whether the learned High Court Judge erred in law and fact by failing to clearly state which statutory presumption (e.g., under Section 37(da) DDA 1952) was applied at the close of the prosecution's case.
• Whether the High Court's failure to explicitly state the applicable presumption and the corresponding burden of proof prejudiced the appellant's right to adequately prepare his defence.
• Whether the High Court Judge was inconsistent in their findings between the notes of evidence and the written grounds of judgment regarding the application of statutory presumptions.

• The Court of Appeal unanimously found merit in the appellant's argument that the High Court's failure to clearly state the presumption applied and the burden of proof at the close of the prosecution's case constituted a serious misdirection by non-direction.
• This misdirection prejudiced the appellant, as it left him confused about whether he needed to merely raise reasonable doubt or rebut a statutory presumption on a balance of probabilities.
• Despite the misdirection, the Court found the conviction for possession under Section 12(2) DDA 1952 to be safe, given the overwhelming evidence of the appellant's control, custody, and knowledge of the seized drugs, and thus partially allowed the appeal by substituting the trafficking conviction with one for possession, punishable under Section 39A(2) DDA 1952, and reduced the sentence to 10 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of whipping.