What are the implications of the presumption under Section 37(da) DDA 1952?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Presumption Under Section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Places a Burden on the Accused

The presumption under Section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA) 1952 operates to shift the burden of proof in certain drug trafficking cases. If the prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the accused must then actively disprove the presumption, failing which they may be found guilty. In the case of Jason Hew Kiong Chew, the High Court found that the accused did not successfully reject this presumption, nor did he raise reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case.
Failure to Dislodge the Presumption Leads to Conviction

In drug trafficking cases, the prosecution must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged offence. However, Section 37(da) of the DDA 1952 introduces a presumption that, if proven by the prosecution, requires the accused to demonstrate their innocence or raise a reasonable doubt. For Hew, the court was satisfied that the prosecution had met its initial burden, and the subsequent failure of the defence to counter the presumption led directly to his conviction.
Legal Effect on the Burden of Proof

Generally, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in criminal matters. However, specific provisions like Section 37(da) modify this principle in serious offences such as drug trafficking. This section implies that possession of a certain quantity of a specified drug, once established by the prosecution, is considered proof of trafficking unless the accused can offer a satisfactory explanation or evidence to the contrary.
Prosecution's Case Remained Unchallenged

The court's decision highlighted that the accused did not succeed in raising any reasonable doubt concerning the evidence presented by the prosecution. This implies that the prosecution's evidence, including the discovery of 211.95 grams of methamphetamine and its estimated value of RM45,000, was considered sufficient and credible. Consequently, the onus shifted to the accused to present a defence that would invalidate these findings, a step he did not effectively take.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What are the implications of the presumption under Section 37(da) DDA 1952?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends