[2017] 6 MLJ Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor (Tengku Maimun JCA) 101 A Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor B COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA) — CRIMINAL APPEAL NO J-05–44–02 OF 2015 TENGKU MAIMUN, AHMADI ASNAWI AND KAMARDIN HASHIM JJCA 29 MARCH 2017 C D E F G H I Constitutional Law — Legislation — Constitutionality of statute — Appellant convicted with offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to death under s 39B(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — Whether mandatory death sentence provided under s 39B(2) unconstitutional Criminal Procedure — Appeal — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Appellant convicted with offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to death — Whether learned trial judge misdirected himself in handling presumptions — Whether learned trial judge failed to appreciate defence — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ss 2, 37(d), (da), 39B(1)(a) & (2) The appellant was charged with the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘the Act’) punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act. The prosecution’s case was that, during an inspection by the customs officers at the Senai International Airport, the customs officers found the drugs inside a brown trolley bag (‘P13A’) bearing the appellant’s name. In defence, the appellant contended that she was looking for honeymoon destination when she travelled to New Delhi. The appellant claimed that P13A was given by one African guy named George when she was in New Delhi. The appellant then travelled from New Delhi to Johor. The appellant denied any knowledge of the drugs concealed in P13A. Her defence was one of innocent carrier. At the end of the trial, the trial judge rejected the appellant’s defence and found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was thus convicted and sentenced to death. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. The appellant submitted that: (a) there was no finding by the learned trial judge at the end of the prosecution case as to whether he had relied on the presumption of possession under s 37(d) of the Act or the presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) of the Act whereas at the end of the defence case, His Lordship failed to make a finding as to which presumption had or had not been rebutted on balance of probabilities; (b) the learned trial judge had failed to appreciate the evidence on George and despite good Alcontara notice being given, the prosecution failed to investigate George; and (c) the mandatory