RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: N-05-154-2010

case. They only surfaced during the defence. Hence his Lordship
held them to be afterthoughts. These facts are adumbrated in
paragraphs a – i of his Lordship’s judgment at pages 135 – 141 of the
Appeal Record. We do not deem it necessary to reproduce those
matters here but suffice to say that even if they are “afterthoughts” as
the learned trial judge has found them to be, they do not in any way
help bolster the defence case and neither do they strengthen the
prosecution’s case.
In further support of his contention that the trial judge has
misdirected himself in failing to appreciate the defence case, learned
counsel submits that the trial judge has failed to consider the evidence
of SD2 – SD5 which supports the appellant’s version and defence that
he was not in exclusive control of the room where the drugs were
found and the drugs could have been placed there or belonged to
others who had access to the room.
We agree with the learned counsel’s submission that the
learned trial judge did not consider and appraise the evidence of these
defence witnesses. In paragraph 25 of his Lordship’s ground of
judgment (pages 129 – 130 of the Appeal Record) a summary of the
appellant’s evidence was tabulated but nowhere else do we find his
Lordship’s consideration of the other defence witnesses’ evidence. To
use the learned counsel’s words, “his Lordship brushed it aside without
sufficient consideration”. To illustrate his point, learned counsel cited a
passage from the judgment at pages 142 – 143 of the Appeal Record
where his Lordship said:
9