Did Parliament overstep its powers amending the Dangerous Drugs Act?

Question

Accepted Answer

Parliament May Have Exceeded Legislative Authority in Amending Dangerous Drugs Act

Lawyers representing individuals convicted of drug trafficking have argued before the Federal Court that Parliament overstepped its constitutional powers by amending the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA). The core of the argument centres on Section 37A of the DDA, enacted in 2004, which allows courts to apply presumptions of possession and trafficking to secure convictions. This amendment is contended to infringe upon the judicial power to declare the law, a power exclusively vested in the courts, thereby potentially violating Article 74(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Parliament Alleged to Have Encroached on Judicial Powers

The argument presented suggests that Parliament's authority, as outlined in Article 74(1) of the Federal Constitution, is limited to the enactment of laws. It is contended that the legislature does not possess the power to "declare" law, which is deemed a judicial function. This distinction is crucial in the case of Section 37A of the DDA, which is alleged to have been introduced to effectively overrule a 1998 Federal Court decision in Muhammed bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor. In that prior ruling, the Federal Court had found the use of "double presumption" to be unduly harsh and oppressive.
Section 37A Assailed as Unconstitutional Infringement

Section 37A of the DDA permits courts to invoke presumptions regarding the possession and trafficking of controlled substances when determining guilt. Critics argue that this provision unconstitutionally encroaches upon the judicial sphere by mandating a legal outcome that the courts had previously deemed problematic. The basis for this constitutional challenge is rooted in the assertion that Section 37A violates Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This argument was specifically raised during the appeals of Alma Nudo Atenza and Orathai Prommatat, both convicted of drug trafficking through the application of these presumptions.
Defence Argues Section 37A is a Valid Law

In response, the prosecution has maintained that Section 37A of the DDA constitutes a valid law. It is argued that Parliament enacted this provision within its legislative competence under Article 74 of the Federal Constitution. Furthermore, the prosecution contends that Section 37A is in compliance with both Article 5 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution. The Deputy Public Prosecutor also suggested that the appellants should have initiated their constitutional challenge under Article 4(3) and Article 4(4) of the Federal Constitution, requiring leave from a single Federal Court judge.
Federal Court Reserves Judgment on Constitutional Challenge

The Federal Court heard these arguments presented by counsel for the appellants and the prosecution. The bench, comprising nine judges, including the Chief Justice Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, subsequently reserved its judgment on the matter. The court indicated that a date for the delivery of its decision would be fixed at a later time. The appeals in question relate to convictions for drug trafficking, with Alma Nudo Atenza charged with trafficking methamphetamine and Orathai Prommatat accused of trafficking cocaine, both cases involving the invocation of the double presumption under Section 37A.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Did Parliament overstep its powers amending the Dangerous Drugs Act?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends