Yap Kit Seong v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Yap Kit Seong

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]

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

• The appellant was charged in the High Court with drug trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (423.29 grams of Methamphetamine) and two counts of possession under Section 12(2) (Ketamine and MDMA), following a police raid on a bedroom exclusively used by him at his mother's house.
• Physical evidence (drugs packed in six uniform plastic packets found in a container alongside the appellant's clothing) was corroborated by DNA analysis linking the appellant to the items, while his mother testified the room was always locked and used solely by him.
• At the close of the defence case, the High Court convicted the appellant on all charges, sentencing him to 30 years' imprisonment with 12 strokes of whipping for trafficking and 4 years' imprisonment (to run concurrently) for each possession charge, applying the discretion available under the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023.

• Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the appellant's defence of "own consumption" as a means of rebutting the statutory presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
• Whether the unsworn statement from the dock, unsupported by medical or corroborative evidence, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt on the issue of trafficking despite the large quantity of drugs involved.
• Whether the sentence imposed, exercised under the discretionary framework of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, was manifestly excessive.

• The Court of Appeal held that the "own consumption" defence was correctly rejected, as the quantity of Methamphetamine (8 times the statutory trafficking threshold) and the manner of packaging were wholly inconsistent with personal use, distinguishing the case from Cohen Lorraine Philis & Anor v Public Prosecutor, where medical evidence of addiction had been present.
• The Court found the appellant's claims of addiction and drug-use with friends to be an unsupported "bare denial" and afterthought, particularly given the absence of medical evidence, no prior drug-related convictions, and direct contradiction by his mother's testimony that the room was always locked.
• Applying the principle from Mohamed Yazri Minhat v PP that larger drug quantities strengthen the inference of trafficking, the Court upheld both the conviction and the sentence, finding no error warranting appellate intervention per Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors v Gan Yook Chin & Anor.