Salesman escapes death, drug trafficking case sent for retrial

The case of a salesman who was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death has been ordered by the Court of Appeal to be sent back to the High Court for a retrial. Cheah Wai Luck, 36, appealed the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court that sentenced him to death, and a panel of three judges led by Judge Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera unanimously ordered a retrial of the case. The judges deemed that there was merit in the appeal and that the appellant’s defense should be properly heard by the trial judge. Therefore, the case is returned to the High Court for retrial.

The other two judges on the panel were Datuk Azman Abdullah and Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli. Vazeer Alam, in his judgement, emphasized that a lawyer appointed by the accused must diligently defend the accused and obtain appropriate instructions. In this case, the lawyer did not meet or communicate with the appellant until it adversely affected the defense case, which the judges deemed to be an injustice to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction and sentence is allowed, and the decision of the High Court is set aside.

Cheah was appealing the sentencing he received from Kuala Lumpur High Court Judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali on February 26, 2021. He was found guilty of trafficking 184.35g of methamphetamine in a condominium in Setapak on June 17, 2017. The offense was charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which carries the death penalty or life imprisonment upon conviction.

During the appeal, Cheah’s lawyer, Nur Hayati Omar, claimed that the previous lawyer had not met with the appellant in prison, depriving him of the opportunity to present crucial information regarding a person named “Ah Chun” who had access to the appellant’s house before his arrest. The failure to raise this point during the prosecution case was deemed detrimental to the appellant’s defense. The prosecution, represented by deputy public prosecutor Mangai Krishnan, argued that it would be unfair to label the appellant’s counsel as incompetent without giving them a chance to clarify the situation and establish the facts.

– Bernama