[2014] 5 MLRA 9. Nachilongo Doreen v. PP 401 The accused testified that her friends named Esther and David would make arrangements to pay for her expenses and hotel bill or alternatively she would stay in their house in Malaysia. The arrangement should have been made earlier ... The story became more improbable as the accused claimed that Esther and David would pay for her hotel bill, whilst they were only students; and 10. Finally, if her intention was to secure a job in Malaysia failing which she would enroll in college, why would she have a return ticket for 1 February 2010 (P16D).” [16] On the possibility that somebody could have planted the drugs in bag P17 during the eight hours gap, the learned trial judge made the following finding: “1. ... 2. There is nothing in the Immigration system to suggest that the accused could be detained for eight hours by the Immigration as she was not blacklisted from entering this country and there were no problems with her passport and e-ticket; 3. ... There is no reason as to why the prosecution witnesses or anybody should go all out to fix the accused merely to get the accused convicted. What would they gain by getting an innocent visitor to the country (assuming the accused’s story were to be believed) charged and if convicted hung for drug trafficking? What could be the motive? ... 4. Furthermore the drugs were hidden under “pelapik-pelapik yang dilekatkan dengan gam yang kuat.” If somebody wanted to fix the accused, they could just easily put the drugs on top of the other items in the bag. There was no necessity to place the drugs well hidden/ concealed at the base of the bag; 5. Even after she was arrested, the accused never made an attempt to inform the police with regards to her father or her friends, Natasha, Esther and David. If the accused was telling the truth, she would have immediately told the police about these people in order to assist in the police investigations and to prove that she is innocent.” [17] Having found that the appellant’s defence had not raised a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to death. Hence the appeal. The Appeal [18] Before us, learned counsel for the appellant raised the following issues: (i) that there was a break in the chain of evidence; and (ii) that at the end of the case, the learned trial judge had applied the wrong standard of proof.