Public Prosecutor V Kong Seng Long (2020) Mlju 1067 High Court Johor Bahru

PREPARED BY : SHAHMUNI A/P T.
RAVICHANDRAN ( A163765) – FIRM 8

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v KONG SENG LONG [2020] MLJU 1067
HIGH COURT JOHOR BAHRU
1.0 FACTS OF THE CASE,
ASP Ahmad Syaari bin Ishak (PW5) and a team of police personnel from Jabatan Siasatan
Jenayah Narkotik IPK Johor were led by the accused to his house. In the house and led by the
accused, PW 5 and the team found a room was locked and the accused went to the storeroom
below the stairs to retrieve a ladle which was used by the accused to force open the locked
room door. Upon entering the room, the accused took one brown coloured bag and handed
over the bag to PW 5. An examination of the contents of the said bag revealed four
newspaper packages. In each of the newspaper packages there were translucent plastic
packets containing white and yellowish lumps suspected to be heroin. The accused then
retrieved some translucent plastic packets containing various pills from the drawer. All these
items seized comprising of the impugned drugs and the accused was arrested. The impugned
drugs were then sent to the Chemist Department for analysis and it was confirmed the items
are dangerous drugs. Thereafter, the accused was charged with 6 charges.
2.0 ISSUES
1. Whether the information provided by the accused which led to the discovery of the
impugned drugs is admissible in this case?
3.0 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S SUBMISSION
The DPP argued that the facts reveal that it was the accused that led the police to the house
and his room. The accused had informed the police that he had kept the impugned drugs
which resulted in the accused leading to PW 5 and the team of police personnel to his house.
4.0 LEARNED COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION
The learned counsels argued that the accused was in police custody for three days before the
accused led the police to the house and room where the impugned drugs were found. The
three days when the accused was in police custody would allow anyone to access the
accused’s room. Further the accused brother, PW 7 had stated that PW 7’s friends had visited
him during the three days that the accused was in police custody. These friends of PW 7 was
consider potential suspects by the accused.
5.0 JUDGMENT & REASONING
The court held that the information provided by the accused which led to the discovery of the
impugned drugs is admissible in this case. Pursuant to s 27 of EA 1950, when any fact is
deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of
any offence in the custody of a police officer, so much of that information, whether the
information amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered
may be proved. Succinctly, for s 27 of the EA 1950 to be applicable, certain prerequisites
need to be satisfied. In the case of Public Prosecutor v Wong Thean Fah, Heliliah J stated
that there are conditions necessary for the application of s 27 of the EA 1950. The first
condition is that the fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the
issue. In the present case, the information was given by the accused consequently resulted in
the accused leading the police team to his house where the impugned drugs were recovered.
The evidence before this court indicates that the police had no prior knowledge of the
impugned drugs. This court finds that the evidence is relevant to the issue. The second
condition is that the fact must have been discovered in consequence of some information
received from the accused. The evidence before this court is that the impugned drugs were
recovered after the accused had informed PW 5 that he had illegal drugs in his house and
subsequently led PW 5 and the police team to his house. This court finds the impugned drugs
were discovered in consequence of the information provided by the accused. The third
requirement is that the information which was received must have been received from a
person accused of an offence. In the present case, prior to that PW 5 inquired from the
accused while the accused was in police custody whether the accused had kept illegal drugs.
In answer to PW 5’s question, the accused replied in the affirmative stating the said drugs
were in his house. The fact that the information received was from a person accused of an
offence is not in question. The fourth condition is that he must be in the custody of a police
officer at the time the information was provided. From the evidence before this court, the
accused was remanded on 28.04.2017. The accused informed PW 5 of the information on
30.04.2017 which consequently resulted in the accused leading PW 5 and the police team to
the house. Hence, this court finds the fourth condition has been satisfied. The fifth
requirement is that the discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an
accused in custody must be deposed to. In this case, the evidence indicates that the accused
was in custody when the information was provided to PW 5. According to PW 5’s evidence,
he had read out the caution to the accused before the accused provided him with the
information. Taking into account the evidence before this court and applying the same to the
conditions for s 27 of the EA 1950 to be employed as per the case of PP v Wong Thean
Fah, the court finds that s 27 is successfully applicable in this case. In conclusion, the court
convicted the accused for the first charge, second, third, fourth and fifth charge and sentenced
to death. As for the sixth charge, the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of
fifteen years for the date of arrest and twelve (12) strokes.

Public Prosecutor V Kong Seng Long (2020) Mlju 1067 High Court Johor Bahru

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Prosecutor V Kong Seng Long (2020) Mlju 1067 High Court Johor Bahru

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Prosecutor V Kong Seng Long (2020) Mlju 1067 High Court Johor Bahru

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREPARED BY : SHAHMUNI A/P T.

RAVICHANDRAN ( A163765) – FIRM 8

1.0 FACTS OF THE CASE,

You might also like