108 Malayan Law Journal [2017] 6 MLJ [14] After being told that the appellant was looking for a luggage shop, the African guy named George told the appellant that he had an extra luggage at home and that he could give her instead of her buying a new one. [15] On the day before the appellant left New Delhi, George called the appellant and told her that he was on the way to meet her. George then came to the appellant’s room and gave the luggage to her. The appellant transferred her clothing from her old bag to the bag given by George. After helping the appellant to discard the old bag, George left. [16] From New Delhi airport, the appellant took a flight to Johor where she transited at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport. When the appellant arrived at Senai International Airport, she collected her bag P13A and went through the customs check point. [17] The appellant denied any knowledge of the drugs concealed in the bag. Her defence was one of innocent carrier. A B C D FINDINGS AT THE END OF THE DEFENCE CASE [18] The learned trial judge acknowledged that the main line of the defence was that she has no knowledge of the drugs that were found in bag P13A which was given to her by George. [19] His Lordship considered whether the person named George was a fictitious character. The learned trial judge observed that the appellant revealed no particulars of George. The appellant did not remember George’s phone number and neither did she save his number in the ‘contact’. His Lordship however found from the forensic report of the appellant’s handphone (‘P35A’) that there were text messages sent by the appellant to one Boshoff Jaco when the appellant’s bag was being searched by the customs officers. [20] Having evaluated the oral evidence and the cautioned statement (‘D39’) which made no mention of George or Boshoff Jaco, the learned trial judge found that the defence was highly improbable and that George was a fictitious character. [21] His Lordship nevertheless considered the defence of innocent carrier by making reference to the line of authorities and he also considered the conduct and the reaction of the appellant upon the bag being searched. In the circumstances of the case, His Lordship rejected the defence of innocent carrier put forth by the appellant. [22] Having found that the appellant failed to cast any reasonable doubt on E F G H I