High Court frees duo in syabu trafficking case

Justice K Muniandy says Azlan Ramli and Farisya Fadly Yahaya were innocent carriers.

Justice K Muniandy, in acquitting Azlan Ramli and Farisya Fadly Yahaya, said the prosecution had failed to call the car owner and his employee to disprove the claim that the accused were mere drivers.

KUALA LUMPUR:

 Two part-time drivers walked free after the High Court acquitted them of a charge of trafficking in 28.2kg of methamphetamine, accepting their defence that they were innocent carriers.

Justice K Muniandy acknowledged that drug trafficking was a grave offence, but said the law calls for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt.

He said Azlan Ramli and Farisya Fadly Yahaya had provided an explanation that was not only inherently probable but also consistent with the conduct of innocent carriers.

The drugs, also known as syabu, were discovered two years ago in the boot of a car driven by Azlan, with Farisya as a passenger.

The duo testified that they were working as part-time drivers for an individual known only as Zulharizam, or “Abang Jue”, and had followed his instructions.

The prosecution had proved a prima facie case by invoking the presumption of trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, resulting in both accused being ordered to enter their defence.

As a result, the burden of proof shifted to Azlan and Farisya to rebut the presumption of trafficking, which they did successfully, the judge said.

He said the duo had provided an acceptable explanation that they were merely hired drivers and their conduct during a seven-to-nine-hour journey from Kelantan to Kuala Lumpur was consistent with that of employees performing a task, rather than principals in a drug syndicate.

Muniandy, now a Court of Appeal judge, noted that the prosecution had failed to call the car owner, Fakrul Haikal, and his employee, Abang Jue.

“Their testimonies would have been vital to disprove the claim by the accused persons of being mere drivers, and also to confirm or deny the employer-driver relationship.

“Failure to produce them as witnesses triggers an adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act,” he said in a written judgment posted on the judiciary’s website.

Muniandy said the absence of the witnesses strengthened the defence’s case by making their narrative more probable.

He noted that the car did not belong to either of the accused persons but was registered in the name of Fakrul.

The prosecution had also failed to negate the possibility of third-party access to the vehicle, he said.

The judge said the fact that the owner and Abang Jue also had access to the vehicle meant that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had exclusive possession of the vehicle.

The prosecution had also failed to provide direct or circumstantial evidence, such as incriminating messages or fingerprints on the drug packages, to prove that the accused persons knew they were carrying dangerous drugs in the boot of the car. - FMT