In landmark ruling, court rejects British woman’s bid to fast-track drug trial

PUTRAJAYA: A magistrate cannot transfer a drug trafficking case to the High Court before receiving a chemist’s report that confirms the identity and weight of the seized drugs, the Court of Appeal has ruled in a departure from earlier precedent.

The decision was made by Justice Wong Kian Kheong, sitting with Justices Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz and Meor Hashimi Abdul Hamid, in dismissing a British woman’s application for leave to appeal against the High Court’s refusal to revise a magistrate’s decision not to transfer her case.

The woman, Deishanei Ciara Hall, is charged with trafficking 19kg of cannabis at KLIA. She argued that the magistrate was required under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 to immediately transfer the case to the High Court.

However, Justice Wong, in a 31-page judgment released on Thursday, ruled that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the application as the High Court had merely declined to exercise its revisionary powers, and had not conducted a substantive revision.

In a departure from a ruling in a 2007 drugs case, the court held that a case is only exclusively triable in the High Court once a chemist’s report confirms the drug type and quantity fall under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Wong said expert evidence is essential in determining jurisdiction and that without a chemist’s report, trial scheduling and court allocation could be affected.

He said the decision in the 2007 case, PP v Marwan Ismail, had failed to consider the statutory and practical role of the chemist’s report. He added that the Court of Appeal was therefore not bound to follow a previous legal principle if the earlier decision was made incorrectly against a statutory provision.

Wong said an accused person may lawfully remain in custody under the Dangerous Drugs Act pending completion of forensic analysis.

Hall was arrested in April 2025, and charged at the Sepang magistrates’ court. Her lawyers’ application to transfer the case to the High Court was rejected by the magistrate. Hall sought but failed to obtain a revision by the High Court, prompting Hall to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Deputy public prosecutor Abdul Malik Ayob, who objected to Hall’s application, argued that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction as the High Court had not exercised its revisionary powers.

Hall was represented by lawyers Michelle Tan, Isaac Hong and Michelle Liu.