Phan Yok Khoon v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Phan Yok Khoon

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was convicted by the High Court on two charges: trafficking in dangerous drugs (119 grams of heroin and monoacetylmorphines) under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and using a motor vehicle for drug trafficking activity under s 3(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988.
• The prosecution's case relied on direct trafficking evidence, with a police-appointed agent provocateur negotiating and arranging a drug purchase from the appellant, culminating in an ambush arrest at a toll plaza car park where drugs were found in the appellant's vehicle.
• The appellant's defence was a bare denial, claiming he was at the scene to meet the agent provocateur for foreign worker documentation purposes and that the drugs belonged to an unnamed third party ("Ea Kiang" @ "Pendek"), a claim the trial judge found to be an afterthought as it was never put to prosecution witnesses.
• The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the trafficking charge and 5 years' imprisonment for the vehicle-use charge, to run concurrently, and appealed against both conviction and sentence.

• Whether discrepancies between the evidence of the agent provocateur and the raid officer regarding the drug transaction negotiations were material enough to undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution's case.
• Whether the protection afforded to agent provocateur evidence under s 40A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 shields such evidence from being discredited by minor inconsistencies with other witnesses.
• Whether a break in the chain of evidence occurred where certain outer packaging (plastic and cloth bags) recovered at the scene was not sent to the chemist for analysis, thereby affecting the integrity of the drug exhibits.

• The Court held that s 40A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 protects an agent provocateur's evidence from being presumed unworthy of credit, and corroboration of such evidence is not required in law.
• Applying established authorities, the Court found the alleged discrepancies between the agent provocateur and the raid officer were minor and did not go to the root of the charges, and thus did not destroy the credibility of the prosecution's case.
• The Court found no break in the chain of evidence, as the chemist confirmed the drug exhibits analysed matched those stated in the charge, notwithstanding that certain outer packaging was not sent for analysis; the appeal against conviction and sentence was accordingly dismissed and the High Court's decision affirmed.