Natalia Mooting Q

On Sun, 2/27/11, Diba Natalia Ishak <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Diba Natalia Ishak <[email protected]>

Subject: Mooting (Natalia Ishak)
To: [email protected]
Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 8:08 PM
IN THE MOOT COURT OF APPEAL OF UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY MARA BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(APPELLANT) AGAINST HARRY BOTTHER (RESPONDENT)

Inspector Gandalf is the head of the Narcotic Department of the Shah Alam Police Headquarter. He received a report
pertaining to the existence of illegal transactions of prohibited drugs in front of Giant Supermarket, section 7, Shah
Alam. In order to the report, Inspector Gandalf decided to conduct an undercover investigation together with two other
police officers, Constable Legolas and Constable Gimli.

On 12 October 2010 at 12pm, Inspector Gandalf, Constable Legolas and Constable Gimli disguised themselves in civilian
clothes. They sat at a Mamak Stall located approximately about 20 feet from the Giant Supermarket. They observed a
man in his early 20's who was wearing a pink shirt on two different occasions take a tiny yellow plastic bag out of his
mouth and hand it over to another person in his early 40's who was wearing a long trench coat. The man in the long
trench coat was approached by another man. After a brief discussion, the man in the long trench coat passed the bag
to the other man in exchange for money. Inspector Gandalf, Constable Legolas and Constable Gimli believed that the
bags contained drugs. They proceeded to apprehend the man in the pink shirt. The man who was wearint the trench
coat managed to run away. Noticing the appeareance of the police, the man in the pink shirt quickly swallowed the
entire consignment of tiny plastic bags.

Upon inspection, Inspector Gandalf failed to find any drugs on the man in the pink shirt. Further enquiries revealed that
the man is known as Harry Botter. In order not to hamper the investigation, Inspector Gandalf sought for an order to
trigger the vomitting of the bags. After the order was granted, he brought Harry Botter to the local hospital. He ordered
Doctor Ronny to administer a substance known as emetics to Harry Botter to hasten the vomitting. Doctor Ron
questioned Harry Botter about his medical history before performing the procedure. Harry Botter merely shrugged his
shoulders and informed Doctor Ron that he has never been hospitalised before. He refused to take the substance.
Doctor Ron had to force him to swallow the substance while Inspector Gandalf and Constable Legolas held him. As a
result, Harry Botter vomitted two small plastic bags containing 30 grams of opium. Later, Doctor Ron inspected him and
declared that he is fit for detention.

During the investigation, Harry Botter claimed that he did not know the exact content of the plastic bags. The bag
belonged to a man known as Mr. Inferno. Mr. Inferno forced him to keep the bags inside his mouth. He would hand
over the bags to Mr Inferno whenever he was instructed to do so. He also claimed that he accidentally swallowed the
plastic bags due to the suddent appearance of Inspector Gandalf, Constable Legolas and Constable Gimli.

After one week, Harry Botter complained of suffering a continuous stomach pain. He was diagnosed with irritation in
the lower area of the oesophagus due to the reflux of gastric acid. However, the medical report did not indicate the
exact cause of his stomach pain and whether it was related to the procedure performed on him by Doctor Ronny.

On 1 December 2010, Harry Botter was charged under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The High Court of
UiTM found that Harry Botter was not guilty.

Mr Justice Archeon made the following finding:

1. The evidence obtained due to the vomitting of the plastic bags is not admissible. The manner in which the evidence
was obtained renders the trial unfair.
2. There is a serious violation of physical integrity of the accused when the procedure to provoke him to vomit was
performed without his consent. The right of the accused to incriminate himself had been undermined.
3. The accused had cast doubt on the issue of possession and successfully rebut the presumption of trafficking.

The Public prosecutor now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
1. The Procedure informed on the accused was not an unreasonable search and seizure. Thus the evidence obtained is
admissible.
2. The procedure performed on the accused is necessary in order to prevent a possibly life threatening intoxication.
Thus, there is no violation of the physical integrity of the accused and the right not to incriminate himself.
3. The accused had failed to case any doubt on the issue of possession and had failed to rebut the presumption of
trafficking.

Natalia Mooting Q

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natalia Mooting Q

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natalia Mooting Q

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On Sun, 2/27/11, Diba Natalia Ishak <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Diba Natalia Ishak <[email protected]>

You might also like