3101(R)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT AT PUTRAJAYA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05(M)-300-12-2021(B)
HADIRMAN BIN GHANI
(APPELLANT)
v
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(RESPONDENT)
______________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________________
TEAM MEMBERS:
SENIOR COUNSEL:
NURUL HUSNA BINTI ZAINI
JUNIOR COUNSEL:
NORZAFIRAH BINTI DIAN
(PLEADINGS: 2200 words)
3101(R)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
ii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
iii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
iv
ISSUES RAISED
v
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
vi
PLEADINGS
1
ISSUE 1
1
THE NET WEIGHT OF THE IMPUGNED DRUGS IS NOT FATAL AND IS
OPTIONAL/ NON-INCUMBENT ON THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH
DRUG TRAFFICKING CHARGE
1
A) The elements of possession and manufacturing are sufficient to establish drugtrafficking of dangerous drugs that are not listed under Section 37(da) of the
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234].
1
B) Delta-9 weight is neither a statutory requirement under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
[Act 234] nor part of requirement in Malaysian jurisprudence.
3
C) The weight of the impugned drugs is not incumbent on the Prosecution to establish. 5
ISSUE 2
7
THE DANGEROUS DRUGS STATED IN THE DELTA-9 CHARGES WERE NOT
MEDICINAL CANNABIS AND THE APPELLANT CAN BE CAUGHT FOR THE
OFFENCE OF DRUG TRAFFICKING
7
A) The dangerous drugs stated in the Delta-9 charges were not medicinal cannabis.
7
B) The Delta-9 drug is subjected to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234], hence, the
Appellant can be caught for the offence of drug trafficking.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
8
9
3101(R)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
CA
Court of Appeal
DDA
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
HC
High Court
PP
Public Prosecutor
NPRA
National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency
i
3101(R)
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984……………...………………………6
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91]...........................................................................iii
Criminal Procedure Code [Act 593] ……………………………………….……………3
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234] .................... iv, v, vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
CASES
Chan Wei Loon & Another v Public Prosecutor [2018] 6 MLJ 476 (CA)…...……….5, 6
Chu Tak Fai v Public Prosecutor [2007] 1 MLJ 201 (FC)……………………………….4
Maggie Taissya Olyvia v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 MLJ 683 (CA)……………………6
Mohd Dan Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor [2019] 1 LNS 808 (CA)………………….7
Muhammad Lukman bin Mohamad v Public Prosecutor [2020] 4 MLJ 747 (CA)……….2
Muhammad Lukman bin Mohamad v Public Prosecutor [2021] 4 MLJ 494 (FC)...……...2
Public
Prosecutor
v
Lam
San
[1991]
3
MLJ
426
(SC)…………………………………………………………………………...…………4
Public Prosecutor v Lee Boon Seng [1995] 4 MLJ 277 (HC)……………………………4
Public Prosecutor v Somasundram Rajasegaran & Another [2016] 1 LNS 1067 (HC)….7
Public Prosecutor v Suzie Adrina Bte Ahmad [2006] 5 MLJ 135 (CA)………………….6
Public Prosecutor v Zolzaya Natsagroj [2015] 6 CLJ 579 (CA)…………………………7
Tay Chung Chaw & Another v Public Prosecutor & Another Appeal (2014) 2 MLJ 671
(CA)…………………………………………………………………………………...3, 5
OTHERS
Penyata Rasmi Parlimen Malaysia – Dewan Rakyat: Parlimen Keempat Belas, Penggal
Keempat, Mesyuarat Kedua (17 November 2021) Bil. 32, DR.17.11.2021.………….5, 7
ii
3101(R)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This case has been brought before the High Court in the first trial and subsequently
appealed to the Court of Appeal. By virtue of Section 87 of the Courts of Judicature Act
1964 [Act 91], this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine any criminal
appeals from any decision of the Court of Appeal in its appellate jurisdiction in respect
of any criminal matter decided by the High Court at the first trial which in this case is
regarding an appeal against convictions and sentences in respect of two Delta-9 charges.
The learned High Court judge had found that three charges under Section 39B(1)(a) of
the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234] against the Appellant were made out and
eventually convicted and sentenced him to death. Thus, the Appellant appealed to the
Court of Appeal whereby the Court of Appeal only allowed the appeal on the Third
charge and dismissed the appeal on the First and Second charges which related to the
Delta-9. Therefore, the Appellant appealed to this Honourable Court against the
convictions and sentences in respect of the said Delta-9 charges.
iii
3101(R)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Police Raid on 5 September 2015
The police team which was led by Inspector Mohd Haikal bin Mohd Zaini (SP7) had
raided a house at No. 5, Jalan Menteri 1C/11 Bandar Mahawangsa, Banting, Kuala
Langat, Selangor. The raiding team had entered the house and inspected every part of the
house after the door was opened by the Appellant. Upon the inspection, the raiding team
had found two trays filled with 93 bottles (filled with cannabis oil) which were placed on
an oven and a jar of biscuits, a slow cooker and a box containing oil at the kitchen.
Meanwhile, apparatus and paraphernalias for smoking drugs were found in the hall.
There were cardboxes which contained numerous Pos Laju receipts and packages of
capes of vape bottles under the stair. In the bedroom, a yellow bag on the mattress and
cannabis were found by the raiding team. In addition, a glass cylinder bottle and boxes
of wrapping papers had been found in the middle room. All the items were seized.
Chemical Analysis and the Drugs
Khairi bin Abdul Ragad (SP6) is an experienced chemist and he had conducted chemical
analysis of the seized items and suspected to be drugs. Following to the analysis’s results,
it proved the existence of cannabis and Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in the said items.
Moreover, the Appellant was clearly admitted before the trial court that he was
acknowledged the oil is cannabis and having possession over the said oil by selling it
online on the website “Health-Care” which was allegedly claimed as medicinal purposes
to cure various ailments.
The Charges
Hence, the Appellant was charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act
1952 [Act 234] for two offences of trafficking Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and an
offence of trafficking cannabis before the High Court. The Appellant was convicted and
sentenced to death. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the two of Delta9 charges were dismissed. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal had allowed the third charge
on the cannabis. Subsequently, feeling unsatisfied, the Appellant had appealed to this
Honourable Court against the convictions and sentences in respect of the two Delta-9
charges.
iv
3101(R)
ISSUES RAISED
1.
Whether the elements of drug-trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous
Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234] were established and sufficient?
2.
Whether Delta-9 weight is neither a statutory requirement under the Dangerous
Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234] nor part of requirement in Malaysian jurisprudence?
3.
Whether the weight of the impugned drugs is not incumbent on the Prosecution to
establish?
4.
Whether the dangerous drugs stated in the Delta-9 charges were not medicinal
cannabis?
5.
Whether the Delta-9 drug is subjected to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234],
hence, the Appellant can be caught for the offence of drug trafficking since the said
dangerous drugs were not medicinal cannabis?
v
3101(R)
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
THE NET WEIGHT OF THE IMPUGNED DRUGS IS NOT FATAL AND NONINCUMBENT
ON
THE
PROSECUTION
TO
ESTABLISH
DRUG
TRAFFICKING CHARGE.
The Prosecution submits that the established elements are sufficient to prove a drug
trafficking charge under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234]
and that the net weight of the impugned drugs is immaterial based on three grounds.
A)
The elements of drug-trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs
Act 1952 [Act 234] were already established and sufficient.
B)
Delta-9 weight is neither a statutory requirement under the Dangerous Drugs Act
1952 [Act 234] nor part of requirement in Malaysian jurisprudence.
C)
The weight of the impugned drugs is not incumbent on the Prosecution to
establish.
DANGEROUS DRUGS IN THE DELTA-9 CHARGES WERE NOT MEDICINAL
CANNABIS AND THE APPELLANT CAN BE CAUGHT FOR THE OFFENCE
OF DRUG TRAFFICKING.
The Prosecution will prove that the Delta-9 charges shall be made out against the
Appellant based on the two subsequent grounds.
A)
The dangerous drugs stated in the Delta-9 charges were not medicinal cannabis.
B)
The Delta-9 drug is subjected to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234], hence,
the Appellant can be caught for the offence of drug trafficking.
vi
3101(R)
PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1
THE NET WEIGHT OF THE IMPUGNED DRUGS IS NOT FATAL AND NONINCUMBENT ON THE PROSECUTION IN ESTABLISHING A DRUG
TRAFFICKING CHARGE UNDER SECTION 39B(1)(a) OF THE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT 1952 [ACT 234].
1.
The Prosecution submits that the Trial and Appeal Judge was right in finding the
Appellant’s guilt since the drug trafficking’s elements were satisfied and has
established a prima facie case, hence the impugned drugs’ weight is immaterial.
A) The elements of drug-trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous
Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234] were established and sufficient.
2.
The drug trafficking offence is mentioned in Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous
Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234] (‘DDA’).1 It states that nobody shall, on his own behalf
or any other person who is inside or outside of Malaysia, traffics in a dangerous drug.
3.
The Court of Appeal (‘CA’) in Muhammad Lukman bin Mohamad v Public
Prosecutor (‘PP’)2 stated that the requirements to convict charges under Section
39B(1)(a) of the DDA3 include the dangerous drugs seized must be as listed in the
First Schedule of the DDA,4 possessed by the Appellant and he was trafficking in the
said drugs. Concerning those elements, Section 2 of the DDA5 defines “dangerous
drugs” as any drug or substance which is comprised in the DDA.6
4.
Section 37(d) of the DDA7 provides that any person who is found to have had in his
custody or under his control anything whatsoever containing any dangerous drug
1
[Act 234].
[2020] 4 MLJ 747 (CA) 762 [52].
3
[Act 234].
4
ibid.
5
ibid.
6
ibid, First Schedule.
7
[Act 234].
2
1
3101(R)
shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been in possession of such drug
and shall be deemed to have known the nature of such drug unless proven otherwise.
5.
Section 2 of the DDA8 also stipulates actions which are considered as the act of
“trafficking”. Manufacturing, keeping, selling, storing, delivering and distributing
any dangerous drugs otherwise under the authority of the DDA9 are also part of drug
trafficking.
6.
In the present case, Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (‘Delta-9’) as the impugned
drugs is one of the dangerous drugs listed under the DDA10 instead of under Section
37(da) of the Act,11 hence the remaining elements which are prioritised to be proved
are the Appellant’s possession and the act of trafficking.
7.
Furthermore, the dangerous drugs were under the Appellant’s custody since they
were found in the raided house especially at the easily-accessed areas where the
Appellant was solely occupied and had the full access to it.12 As for the
paraphernalias found,13 they can be inferred as the evidence of drugs manufacturing.
8.
Thus, the abovesaid facts proves that the Appellant has the possession over the
impugned drugs and simultaneously having the mens rea of his actions and the drugs’
nature.
9.
He also has voluntarily filled the oil into small bottles14 regardless he is aware that
the oil is cannabis. Hence, the element of trafficking has been fulfilled by the
Appellant since he has been doing the actions which constitute the acts of trafficking.
10. Thus, a prima facie case had been established15 based on the evidence adduced since
it is verified that the Appellant clearly has the possession and the act of trafficking
8
[Act 234].
ibid.
10
ibid, First Schedule, Part III.
11
ibid.
12
Moot Problem. 1 [1(i) & (iii)].
13
ibid, 1 [1].
14
ibid, 3 [7].
15
Criminal Procedure Code [Act 593], s 180.
9
2
3101(R)
over the impugned drugs which falls under the DDA.16 Those elements are now
sufficient to establish an offence of drug trafficking of dangerous drugs that are not
listed under Section 37(da) of the DDA.17
11. Therefore, since the main elements have been successfully proved, this Honourable
Court is entitled to convict the Appellant for trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of
the DDA18 regardless any other unessential ingredients questioned by the Appellant.
B) Delta-9 weight is neither a statutory requirement under the Dangerous Drugs
Act 1952 [ Act 234] nor part of requirement in Malaysian jurisprudence.
12. In Tay Chung Chaw & Another v PP & Another Appeal19, the CA held that under
Section 2 of the DDA,20 weight of drugs is not an element to sustain a charge of
trafficking.21
13. Furthermore, the CA in Muhammad Lukman bin Mohamad v PP22 decided that once
the prosecution had proved the elements of possession and trafficking of the
dangerous drugs Delta-9, its amount or quantity are then immaterial.23
14. Moreover, the High Court (‘HC’) in PP v Lee Boon Seng24 held that trafficking
offence is extended to all drugs comprised in the First Schedule of the DDA.25 Thus,
this offence is not limited only to particular parts such as in Section 37(da) of the
Act.26
15. In this present case, the Appellant’s charge is made under Section 39B(1)(a) of the
16
[Act 234], s 2.
ibid.
18
ibid.
19
[2014] 2 MLJ 671 (CA).
20
[Act 234].
21
[2014] 2 MLJ 671 (CA) 680 [20].
22
[2020] 4 MLJ 747 (CA).
23
[2020] 4 MLJ 747 (CA) 762 [52].
24
[1995] 4 MLJ 277 (HC) 278 [3].
25
[Act 234].
26
ibid.
17
3
3101(R)
DDA27 and Delta-9 is a dangerous drug28 that is not included under Section 37(da)
of the Act29 in which a certain weight is required. Therefore, the drugs’ net weight
is immaterial in establishing a drug trafficking offence against the Appellant. The
presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da) of the DDA30 thus cannot be relied.
16. Next, pertaining to the issue of the chemist’s analysis, this Honourable Court in the
case of Chu Tak Fai v PP31 emphasised that it is unnecessary for the chemist to go
into details of what he did in the laboratory if the evidence is credible.32
17. The above principle follows the Supreme Court’s judgment33 in Public Prosecutor
v Lam San34 where the court is entitled to accept the evidence of the chemist at face
value unless it is inherently incredible or the defence calls another chemist to
contradict the opinion.35
18. Similarly, this Honourable Court in the present case is entitled to accept the
evidence provided by SP6 in determining that the items seized were dangerous
drugs36 regardless the methodology used in conducting the analysis. 37 Therefore,
the evidence of the Chemist (SP6) is sufficient and thus unquestionable in terms of
its methodology38 and the drugs’ specific weight.
19. Pertaining to the contradicting opinion from a reasonable person, SD7 is not even
mentioned as an expert chemist.39 Thus, SD7’s statement is irrelevant hence the
chemical analysis results obtained by SP6 is sufficiently reasonable to be admissible
as evidence in this Honourable Court.
20. Therefore, it is not fatal on the Prosecution to submit the weight of the impugned
27
ibid.
ibid, First Schedule. Part III.
29
[Act 234].
30
ibid.
31
[2007] 1 MLJ 201 (FC).
32
ibid. 214 [20].
33
[1991] 3 MLJ 426 (SC) 428 [G].
34
[1991] 3 MLJ 426 (SC).
35
ibid. 428 [E].
36
Moot Problem, 2 [4].
37
ibid, 2 [3].
38
ibid, 3 [13].
39
Moot Problem, 3 [12].
28
4
3101(R)
drugs since it is not part of the elements establishing a drug trafficking as needed
under the DDA,40 besides the fact that the actual requirements have been completely
established at the first place. The weight of the drugs seized would be a requirement
if the impugned drugs is within Section 37(da) of the DDA.41
C) The weight of the impugned drugs is not incumbent on the Prosecution to
establish.
21. The CA in Chan Wei Loon & Another v PP42 stated that it is only incumbent to
prove that the Appellants have possessed the impugned drugs and the related
equipment associated with the act of trafficking and that those evidence are
sufficient to create an inference that the elements of drug trafficking have been
fulfilled.43 In other words, it is incumbent to prove the Appellant’s possession and
the act of trafficking without the drug’s weight.
22. In addition, in Tay Chung Chaw & Another v PP & Another Appeal,44 the CA also
has established that once the defence for trafficking had been called, it is on the
accused to rebut the charge on the balance of probabilities.45
23. In the present case, where an accused is shown to be a trafficker under Section
39B(1)(a) of the DDA46 as the Prosecution has submitted above, the weight of the
drug he carries has no effect on his commission of the offence.47 The commission
is sufficient to attract Section 2 of the DDA48 to sustain the charge of trafficking.
24. There is no merit on the issue of weight has been found in this present case.
Furthermore, it is not the Prosecution’s obligation to establish the impugned drugs’
weight.
40
[Act 234], s 39B(1)(a).
[Act 234].
42
[2018] 6 MLJ 476 (CA).
43
ibid,496 [73].
44
[2014] 2 MLJ 671 (CA).
45
ibid. 680 [20].
46
[Act 234].
47
[2006] 5 MLJ 135 (CA) 143 [12].
48
ibid.
41
5
3101(R)
25. Moreover, even if it is the issue of the admissibility of the chemist’s evidence, SP6
also has done his analysis correctly49 without the need to carry out such quantitative
analysis to obtain the net weight.
26. Therefore, the convictions and sentences rendered by the HC and later affirmed by
the CA must be sustained since it is not fatal and not incumbent on the Prosecution
to raise the net weight of the impugned drugs to establish a drug trafficking offence
under the DDA.50
49
50
Moot Problem, 2 [3].
[Act 234], s 39B(1)(a).
6
3101(R)
ISSUE 2
THE DANGEROUS DRUGS STATED IN THE DELTA-9 CHARGES WERE NOT
MEDICINAL CANNABIS AND THE APPELLANT CAN BE CAUGHT FOR THE
OFFENCE OF DRUG TRAFFICKING.
A) The dangerous drugs stated in the Delta-9 charges were not medicinal cannabis.
27. Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (‘Delta-9’) is apparently listed under Part III of 1st
Schedule of the DDA.51 Section 2 of the DDA52 states that any drug or substance
which has been comprised in the 1st Schedule is eventually defined as dangerous
drugs in Malaysia.
28. Recently, Minister of Health has affirmed that there is no registered product made
from cannabis is used in Malaysia as appears in current Penyata Rasmi Parlimen
Malaysia53 which it states ‘buat masa ini tiada produk berasaskan cannabis untuk
kegunaan rawatan perubatan manusia yang berdaftar di Malaysia.’54
29. Furthermore, in Muhammad Lukman bin Mohamad v PP,55 the Appellant contended
that the dangerous drugs Delta-9 possessed by him was beneficial to the public as
medicinal cannabis, hence, it was legal. However, the CA had found that the Trial
Judge findings were correct which highlighted the absence of legal supportive
evidence from any medical bodies or from the Health Ministry to corroborate his
contention.56
30. It was agreed by this Honourable Court in Muhammad Lukman bin Mohamad v PP57
at its final appeal whereby the Appellant was unauthorised to possess and sell the
drugs Delta-9. There was no substantial research in Malaysia had shown that
51
[Act 234].
ibid.
53
Penyata Rasmi Parlimen Malaysia – Dewan Rakyat: Parlimen Keempat Belas, Penggal Keempat,
Mesyuarat Kedua (17 November 2021) Bil. 32, DR.17.11.2021.
54
ibid, 77.
55
[2020] 4 MLJ 747 (CA) 765 [57].
56
ibid, 765 [62].
57
[2021] 4 MLJ 494 (FC) 513 [45].
52
7
3101(R)
cannabis oil was able to cure any patients who have suffering from any kinds of
ailments.58
31. Moreover, National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (‘NPRA’) is the primary
authority with jurisdiction over cannabinoid drugs. Hence, nobody is allowed to
prescribe cannabinoid drugs except the NPRA itself.59
32. Therefore, in the present case, there is no clear evidence to prove that the Appellant
is authorised to possess and prescribe cannabinoid drugs as the impugned Delta-9 is
dangerous drug and controlled under Part III of 1st Schedule and Section 2 of the
DDA,60 hence, were not medicinal cannabis as asserted by the Appellant.
B) The Delta-9 drug is subjected to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234], hence,
the Appellant can be caught for the offence of drug trafficking.
33. Primarily, Delta-9 exists in Part III of 1st Schedule of the DDA.61 Therefore, Section
2 of the DDA62 states that any drug or substance under the 1st Schedule is eventually
defined as dangerous drugs in Malaysia.
34. Pertaining to drug’s selling, Regulation 7 of the Control of Drugs and Cosmetics
Regulations 198463 provides that everyone is restricted from selling any product
which is unregistered unless the person is authorised under these Regulations. The
product means any drug for medicinal use of human beings.64
35. It is affirmed that cannabinoid drugs shall be registered for the purpose of medicinal
use in Malaysia as Penyata Rasmi Parlimen Malaysia65 recently provides that they
58
[2021] 4 MLJ 494 (FC) 513 [43].
ibid, 512 [42].
60
[Act 234].
61
ibid.
62
ibid.
63
Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984.
64
ibid, r 2.
65
Penyata Rasmi Parlimen Malaysia – Dewan Rakyat: Parlimen Keempat Belas, Penggal Keempat,
Mesyuarat Kedua (17 November 2021) Bil. 32, DR.17.11.2021.
59
8
3101(R)
shall be registered and evaluated by the Authority before being marketed for medical
purposes.66
36. In Mohd Dan Abdul Hamid v PP,67 the CA had found that the act of selling drugs by
an unauthorised person which is the Appellant, was led to a clear act of trafficking
within the meaning of the DDA,68 hence, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced
to death.
37. Pertaining to manufacturing drug stipulated under the DDA,69 the HC in PP v
Somasundram Rajasegaran & Another70 ruled a principle whereby it is unnecessary
for the Prosecution to prove possession which can be inferred from the case’s
circumstances.
38. Thus, in this situation, the apparatus was found in the hall where the Appellant was
resided,71 hence, this Honourable Court has room to infer that the Appellant had
possession over the drug and eventually manufacturing the drug illegally.72
39. In this instance, the Appellant’s admission of knowing that the oil contained
dangerous drugs that alleged to be sold for medicinal purposes73 was amounted to
possession which consequently allowed this Honourable Court to infer that the
Appellant had control over the dangerous drugs in Delta-9 charges.
40. Therefore, the Appellant’s act of selling dangerous drugs in the form of oil to the
public via online website74 and his social media accounts75 which he then posted the
drugs to various customers shall eventually prove the act of drug trafficking, hence,
can be punished with death under the DDA.76
66
ibid, 77.
[2019] 1 LNS 808 (CA) 824 [41].
68
[Act 234], s 2.
69
ibid, s 2.
70
[2016] 1 LNS 1067 (HC) 1089-1090 [51].
71
Moot Problem, 1 [1(i)].
72
[2016] 1 LNS 1067 (HC) 1089,1090 [51].
73
Moot Problem, 3 [8].
74
ibid, 3 [8].
75
ibid, 3 [10].
76
[Act 234], s 39B(2).
67
9
3101(R)
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
The Counsels for the Respondent respectfully request this Honourable Court to declare
and adjudge that: -
1.
The elements of drug trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs
Act 1952 [Act 234] were established and sufficient;
2.
Delta-9 weight is neither a statutory requirement under the Dangerous Drugs Act
1952 [Act 234] nor part of requirement in Malaysian jurisprudence;
3.
The weight of the impugned drugs is not incumbent on the Prosecution to
establish;
4.
The dangerous drugs stated in the Delta-9 charges were not medicinal cannabis;
and
5.
The Delta-9 drug is subjected to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 [Act 234], hence,
the Appellant can be caught for the offence of drug trafficking.
Respectfully submitted:
Counsels for the Respondent
10
IN THE MOOT COURT
FACULTY OF SYARIAH AND LAW
LAD 4223
MEMORIAL SCORE SHEET
Judge’s Name
: YAA TUN DR. FAREED MOHD HASSAN (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Team Number
: 3101 (R)
Memorial for
:
Name
: NURUL HUSNA BINTI ZAINI
ID: 1181828
Name
: NORZAFIRAH BINTI DIAN
ID: 1181816
APPELLANT
/
RESPONDENT
Instructions: For each criterion, a score must be given within the range indicated. When finished, add
the scores in the right-handed column to determine the total score.
No.
Criteria
Range
1
Knowledge of facts and laws
10-20
2
Proper and articulate analysis
10-20
3
Extent and use of research
10-20
4
Clarification and organisation
10-20
5
Citation of sources
5-10
6
Grammar and style
5-10
TOTAL SCORE
Score
50% - 100%
Signature and Seal:
………………………………………………..
YAA TUN DR. FAREED MOHD HASSAN
_____/ _____/ 2021/2022