PREPARED BY

Nur Husna binti Azizan (A173712) - Firm 16

CASE
PP v Chang Kok Foo [2016] 7 MLJ 67

COURT
High Court of Penang

FACTS
The police had entered the accused’s house by cutting open the padlock to the front gate. This
was done in a raiding for drugs operation. The circumstances under which the police gained
entry according to the prosecution narrative was adduced to suggest forced entry into the
premises. This is because that there was no evidence that there were keys to the padlocks found
or produced. Upon entry, the room to where the police found the accused lying down on a bed
was not locked. A search was conducted in the room and drugs were found in the hollow of the
dressing room chair. The drugs was not placed in a visible situation to anyone who entered in the
room. Upon discovery of the drugs, the accused was worried and anxious as well as restless. The
accused was charged with an offence of drug trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and possession of drugs, an offence under section 12(2) of the same
Act.

ISSUES OF EVIDENCE LAW

Whether the reactions of the accused can be considered as relevant fact and admissible under
3section 9 EA 1950.

ARGUMENTS BY THE DPP

The DPP contends that the accused’s reactions that showed obvious signs of worried, ‘cemas’,
‘gelisah’ and restlessness upon the findings of the drugs during the arrest should be admissible as
evidence. These conducts were relevant under section 8 and section 9 of the EA 1950 to prove
that the accused had knowledge of the drugs found.
ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSEL
The learned counsel argued that the reaction of the accused when put in such situation cannot be
adduced as evidence and is not found to be relevant. Any such persons who were put in the same
situation, despite being innocent would have reacted the same way. It was not sufficient to prove
that the accused had knowledge of the drugs.

DECISION AND RATIO DECIDENDI

The court contends that generally the conduct of an accused such as restlessness and nervousness
is admissible as relevant fact under section 8 of EA 1950. Under section 9, facts which support
or rebut an inference suggested by such conduct is relevant.

Hence, if the fact in which the reaction of the accused once the drugs were discovered in his
room supports the inference made by the prosecution that the accused had knowledge of the
drugs. This makes the fact relevant.

The court quoted the case of Parlan bin Dadeh v PP, where it was held that there is no evidence
to show that the conduct is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact as required by section
8, then it may not be admissible as it would be an equivocal act justifying inferences favourable
to the accused being drawn. Conducts like the accused looking shocked, nervous or scared is
very often a matter of preception. Therefore, a detailed evidence need to be required for the
conducts to be relevant and admissible.

Prejudis - memudaratkan

The court found that the accused who was worried, ‘cemas’, ‘gelisah’ and restless showed a
conduct of an equivocal nature at best. Any reasonable person upon realising that incriminating
evidence or object found in their premise would be naturally inclined to display similar reaction,
especially when he was arrested right away. Hence, the court held that such reaction cannot be
considered as evidence and the prosecution cannot constitute the accused’s reaction as having
knowledge of the drugs found in the dressing table chair.