Nur Aishah binti Abdullah v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Nur Aishah Binti Abdullah

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

• The appellant was convicted by the High Court for trafficking 136.60 grams of Heroin and 65.55 grams of Monoacetylmorphines under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
• The prosecution’s case relied on a sting operation where an agent provocateur negotiated a drug deal with the appellant, who personally delivered a bag containing the drugs to the agent's vehicle and attempted to flee when the raiding party arrived.
• The defense argued that the appellant was an "innocent carrier" delivering immigration documents for a third party and challenged the prosecution's failure to produce CCTV footage or fingerprint evidence linking her to the drug packaging.

• Whether the testimony of an agent provocateur is admissible and requires corroboration under Section 40A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 to sustain a conviction.
• Whether the prosecution established sufficient "custody and control" and "knowledge" to trigger the statutory presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da) of the Act.
• Whether the absence of forensic evidence (fingerprints/DNA) and the chemist’s reliance on "on-the-job training" rather than specific academic degrees for drug analysis rendered the conviction unsafe.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 40A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the evidence of an agent provocateur is admissible and does not require corroboration, as the witness is not presumed unworthy of credit.
• The Court affirmed that the appellant’s conduct—specifically negotiating the price, showing the drugs to the agent, and attempting to flee—provided clear evidence of possession and knowledge, thereby satisfying the requirements for the trafficking presumption.
• The Court ruled that a chemist's expert opinion may be accepted at face value unless it is inherently incredible or rebutted by another expert, and that the lack of corroborative forensic or CCTV evidence does not weaken a case where direct oral evidence is found to be credible.