Hisyam Teh Poh Teik said the accused would be better armed to meet the case of the prosecution.
“It is a good rule of practice. It is of particular significance in a drug trafficking charge,” Hisyam said in a commentary in Arifin’s book on a landmark judgment by Arifin in a dadah case involving Thai national Thitapha Charoenchuea.
This judgment is among the 22 cases penned by Arifin which has been compiled in a book titled “Justice Above All.”
The book with commentaries by senior lawyers and retired judges was launched by Sultan of Perak Sultan Nazrin Muizzuddin Shah last week.
Arifin had said a bare ruling without accompanying reasons would inevitably disadvantage or prejudice the accused.
“An accused person is entitled to know with clarity whether it is a prima facie case on presumed trafficking or actual trafficking and what presumptions are invoked, if any,” the lawyer said.
Hisyam said the criminal law could not remain static and the quality of criminal justice had to continuously evolve.
He said Arifin’s advice must knock on the doors of every trial court.
In the case mentioned, a five-man bench led by Arifin last year spared Thitapha, 37, the gallows and instead sentenced her to jail for possessing 1.8kg of cannabis.
She committed the offence at a bus terminal in Sungai Petani, Kedah, on Feb 14, 2012.
The High Court had found her guilty of trafficking and the Court of Appeal affirmed the findings.
Lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who also wrote a commentary on this case, said the apex court’s observation was important as it governed the conduct and protocol of trial judges in their preparation of written judgments.
Shafee said confusion arose as the trial judge had prepared three separate judgments, the first two as to why defence was called and the third at the end of the whole case after defence was heard and submissions made.
He said the apex court had to reduce the charge as the trial judge had failed to consider the element of possession correctly.
“The trial judge merely made the finding of ‘physical possession’ and not the full legal possession which incorporates the element of custody and control with knowledge,” he said.