[2017] 6 MLJ A Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor (Tengku Maimun JCA) 109 the prosecution case and that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to this court. THE APPEAL B [23] Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following grounds of appeal: (a) that the learned trial judge misdirected himself in the handling of the presumptions under s 37(d) and (da) of the Act; (b) that the learned trial judge failed to appreciate the appellant’s defence; and (c) that the mandatory death sentence provided for under s 39B(2) of the Act is unconstitutional. C D E F G [24] On the first ground, learned counsel’s complaint was that at the end of the prosecution case, there was no finding by the learned trial judge as to whether he had relied on the presumption of possession under s 37(d) 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 has or has not been rebutted on a balance of probabilities. [25] As for the second ground of appeal, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial judge had failed to appreciate the evidence on George and despite a good Alcontara notice being given, the prosecution failed to investigate George. [26] In respect of the constitutional issue, learned counsel’s argument was that the mandatory death sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs provided for by s 39B(2) of the Act is unconstitutional as it violates arts 5(1) and 8 of the Federal Constitution and it is arbitrary, disproportionate and fails to take into account the appellant’s individual mitigating circumstances. H I [27] Learned counsel went through the historical developments of the case law in relation to the mandatory death sentence and the position in several jurisdictions including India, United States, Canada and also the position taken by the Organisation of American States and the American Convention on Human Rights. A string of cases were highlighted which we find no necessity to reproduce. [28] Of significance though is learned counsel’s reference to the decision of the Privy Council in Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor; Koh Chai Cheng v