102 Malayan Law Journal [2017] 6 MLJ death sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs provided for by s 39B(2) of the Act was unconstitutional as it violated arts 5(1) and 8 of the Federal Constitution and it was arbitrary, disproportionate and failed to take into account the appellant’s individual mitigating circumstances. In relation to this submission, the appellant relied on the Privy Council’s decision in the case of Reyes v The Queen [2002] UKPC 11 (‘Reyes’s case’). A B Held, dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence of the High Court: (1) The learned trial judge had not misdirected himself in handling the presumptions under the Act. At the end of the prosecution case, the learned trial judge made a finding of mens rea possession and trafficking under s 37(da) of the Act. This approach was not wrong in law. The omission of the learned trial judge to make a finding on whether or not the presumption of trafficking had been rebutted by the appellant on a balance of probabilities, in the circumstances of the case, resulted in no miscarriage of justice to the appellant and did not vitiate the conviction. A case of trafficking had been made out by the prosecution under s 2 of the Act premised on the evidence that the appellant was carrying, keeping and transporting the drugs from New Delhi to Johor (see paras 29 & 31). (2) It defied common sense and logic that the appellant could not remember George’s name when she gave her cautioned statement barely a week after meeting him. Yet when the appellant gave her evidence more than a year later, she remembered and specifically mentioned the name of George. This was an afterthought and the character George was fictitious. In the circumstances, the failure to investigate George could not have adversely affected the prosecution case. Further, the appellant’s version of the purpose of her travel was inherently improbable given the appellant made no mention in her evidence as to the places she had visited in New Delhi and identified as the honeymoon destination. The court further found that there was no error of law or fact in the learned trial judge’s rejection of the defence of innocent carrier (see paras 35–37). (3) Firstly, on Reyes’s case, the Constitution of Belize contained s 7 which read: ‘No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment’. There was no similar provision in Federal Constitution. Secondly, after the amendment to the Federal Constitution, vide Act A566, which repealed the provisions concerning appeals from the Federal Court to the Privy Council with effect from 1 January 1985, any decision of the Privy Council would not be binding on the court but would only be of persuasive authority. Thirdly, for the court follow the current international trend and to hold that the mandatory death sentence was degrading and unconstitutional would result in the court departing from the decisions in Ong Ah Chuan v Public C D E F G H I