Sibu High Court upholds 2022 acquittal of five charged with unlawfully possessing timber logs

SIBU (July 4): The High Court here today dismissed two appeals filed by the Sarawak Forest Department against the Sessions Court’s decision to discharge and acquit five accused of unlawful possession of timber logs.

Judge Wong Siong Tung in his ruling said he found the lower court’s decision in the two cases to be sound and based on facts.

One case involved a shipping company and three of its employees, while the other involved a lorry driver.

All were charged under Section 96(1) of the Forests Ordinance 2015 with unlawful possession of forest produce.

According to the charges, the shipping company and its employees were alleged to have unlawfully possessed 122 pieces of timber, while the lorry driver was alleged to have unlawfully possessed 42 pieces of timber.

The alleged offences took place in 2017 at different places and times.

All five accused were discharged and acquitted by the Sessions Court on Dec 9, 2022.

During the defence of both cases, it was submitted that there was insufficient evidence to prove the existence of the number of logs as stated in the charges.

Judge Wong said that in both cases, the respondents in their defence call testified that Forest Department officers only purportedly counted and measured the timber logs while they were stacked in the vessel and lorry.

They had also testified that only logs stacked on top were measured, while those underneath were not accounted for.

For the case involving the shipping company and its employees, the judge said that there was absence of evidence indicating that the logs were unloaded for counting and measuring.

Thus, he said it was reasonable to conclude that it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to have measured the timber logs stacked underneath, even if they were able to count them.

“This gives rise to reasonable doubt regarding whether the Forest officer concerned actually carried out the measurement of the timber logs stacked underneath in the vessel, and if so, whether it was done properly.

“This casts reasonable doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the content stated in the Log Specification Header,” he said.

For the case involving the lorry driver, Judge Wong said the respondent’s evidence was plausible and was never challenged or discredited by the prosecution during cross-examination.

“The evidence of the respondent for his defence in this aspect was unchallenged. It contradicts, rebuts or otherwise casts a reasonable doubt on whether the proper counting and measurement of the timber logs on the respondent’s lorry were actually carried out.

“This raises questions about the reliability of the Log Specification Header and casts reasonable doubt on the existence of the 42 pieces as stated in the charge,” he said.

He said the Sessions Court judge was duty-bound at the close of the defence case to consider all the evidence in totality adduced by the prosecution as well as defence to determine whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

“In light of the respondent’s defence evidence, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Court judge had erred in law in re-evaluating the finding at the close of the prosecution’s case regarding the existence of the 42 pieces as stated in the charge.

“It is not unreasonable or perverse for the learned Sessions Court judge to find reasonable doubt thereto based on the totality of the evidence presented during the whole trial,” said Judge Wong.