Appeals Court Sentences Former Radio DJ Ismahalil Hamzah to 30 Years for Cannabis Trafficking After Overturning Acquittal

A unanimous Court of Appeal ruling in Putrajaya has reversed the High Court’s acquittal of ex-radio presenter Ismahalil Hamzah, finding the trial judge misdirected himself on both facts and law in a 375g cannabis trafficking case.

---

PUTRAJAYA — The Court of Appeal on Monday overturned the acquittal of former radio presenter Ismahalil Hamzah and sentenced him to 30 years in prison after finding him guilty of cannabis trafficking at a residential address in Wangsa Maju, Kuala Lumpur — a case that dates back to an August 2021 raid and has drawn public attention given the accused’s prior profile as a broadcasting personality.

The three-member bench delivered a unanimous verdict, with Justice Radzi Abdul Hamid reading the oral grounds of judgment. Justices Noorin Badaruddin and Meor Hashimi Abdul Hamid also sat on the panel, with Noorin serving as bench chairman. The jail term was ordered to commence on the day of sentencing. Ismahalil, who is 53 years old, was exempted from the mandatory minimum 12 strokes of the rotan under a statutory provision that shields offenders above the age of 50 from caning.

---

What the Prosecution Established — and Why the High Court’s Earlier Decision Was Overturned

At the centre of the appeal was whether the original trial judge had correctly evaluated the evidence against Ismahalil when he acquitted him approximately three years ago. According to Justice Radzi’s oral grounds, the answer was no on both counts.

Radzi stated that the High Court judge had misdirected himself on the facts and on the applicable law, and that this dual failure warranted direct intervention by the appellate court. Two specific evidentiary failures were identified.

First, the trial judge was found to have improperly assessed Ismahalil’s own defence at the trial stage — specifically, Ismahalil’s claim that a raiding officer had pointed a pistol at him before compelling him to lead police to a bag containing the cannabis. The Court of Appeal found this account was not evaluated with appropriate scrutiny.

Second, and significantly, the trial judge failed to properly weigh evidence establishing that only Ismahalil had meaningful access to the room in which the drugs were discovered. This finding held even after accounting for testimony from Ismahalil’s wife, who claimed that other individuals also had access to that area of the property. The appellate bench did not find that testimony sufficient to dislodge the inference of exclusive access.

“The totality of the evidence establishes that the accused had knowledge, custody and control of the drugs. The prosecution has therefore proven its case beyond reasonable doubt,” Radzi said in delivering the bench’s decision.

---

The Charge, the Drugs, and the Legal Threshold That Applied

Ismahalil was charged with trafficking 375 grams of cannabis at a house in Jalan Semarak, Wangsa Maju, Kuala Lumpur, at approximately 5.35pm on August 27, 2021.

The charge engaged a statutory presumption under Section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Under that provision, any person found in possession or custody of 200 grams or more of cannabis is presumed — unless rebutted — to be trafficking the drug. At 375 grams, Ismahalil’s case fell well above that threshold, placing the burden squarely on the defence to rebut the presumption at trial. The Court of Appeal found that rebuttal was not successfully made out.

Deputy public prosecutor Afzainizam Abdul Aziz confirmed that the prosecution was not seeking the death penalty in this case, and instead urged the court to impose the statutory sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment. That submission was accepted.

In mitigation, defence counsel Putra Ibrahim put before the court that Ismahalil is the sole breadwinner of his family — a factor typically weighed in sentencing considerations, though in this instance it did not alter the outcome given the gravity of the offence and the statutory framework in play.

---

One Avenue of Appeal Remains as Case Proceeds Automatically to Federal Court

Despite the severity of the sentence handed down, Ismahalil’s legal options have not been exhausted. Under Malaysian criminal procedure, a conviction returned at the Court of Appeal level in a case of this nature proceeds automatically to the Federal Court — the country’s apex judicial body. That avenue remains open.

The automatic referral means the Federal Court will have the opportunity to examine whether the Court of Appeal’s reversal of the acquittal was itself correctly decided — both on the question of whether the trial judge’s errors were of the kind that justified appellate intervention, and on whether the evidence, properly evaluated, supports the conviction and sentence now imposed.

Whether Ismahalil’s legal team will pursue arguments at the Federal Court level has not been publicly confirmed at the time of publication.

---

Background: From Broadcasting to the Dock

Ismahalil Hamzah was a recognised name in Malaysian radio before his arrest in August 2021. His case attracted public attention not only because of his former career but because of the trajectory of the proceedings — an initial acquittal at the High Court, followed by a prosecution appeal, and now a full reversal at the appellate level.

The sequence underscores the role of the Court of Appeal in reviewing not just outcomes but the quality of judicial reasoning at first instance. In this case, the bench concluded that the trial judge’s handling of the defence evidence and the access-to-the-room question constituted errors serious enough to void the acquittal entirely.

With the Federal Court referral now pending, the legal proceedings in this case are not yet final.

---

This article is based on court proceedings reported from Putrajaya. All findings cited reflect the oral grounds delivered by the Court of Appeal bench on the day of sentencing.