Public Prosecutor v Julasiri Akilmara

Appellant(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

Respondent(s): Julasiri Bin Akilmara

• YA Dato Rhodzariah binti Bujang
• YA Dato' Nordin Bin Hassan
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

• The respondent and a co-accused were jointly charged with trafficking 137.03 grams of methamphetamine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, after police found the drugs discarded near their vehicle following an attempted escape.
• The High Court convicted both accused, rejecting their defence that an unknown third party ("Kaisar") had thrown the drugs into the car, and sentenced them to life imprisonment and whipping.
• Only the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the finding of possession but allowed the appeal on the basis that the trial judge had failed to specify, at the close of the prosecution's case, whether the defence was called to answer actual or presumed trafficking, substituting a conviction for possession under section 12(2) of the Act.

• Whether a trial judge is statutorily required under section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code to expressly inform an accused, at the close of the prosecution's case, whether the defence is called upon to rebut actual or presumed trafficking.
• Whether the failure to make such an express finding constitutes a miscarriage of justice warranting appellate intervention.
• Whether the evidence on record showed that the respondent was in fact aware of and had engaged with the applicable burden of proof, notwithstanding the absence of an express judicial pronouncement.

• The Federal Court (majority) held that there is no statutory or common law requirement for a trial judge to expressly declare, when calling for the defence, whether the case involves actual or presumed trafficking, relying on established authorities including Yap Chai Chai, Junaidi Abdullah, and Sathya Vello v PP.
• The Court found that the trial record clearly showed the prosecution and defence were both aware that the case concerned actual possession triggering the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da), such that no prejudice or miscarriage of justice arose from the absence of an express judicial statement.
• The majority allowed the Public Prosecutor's appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal's decision, and restored the High Court's conviction and sentence under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, with Rhodzariah Bujang FCJ dissenting.