In Abdul Kahar's case, the three judges - Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Chao Hick Tin - held that the judge was wrong to consider him as a courier by disagreeing with a ruling that repacking and collecting payments were "ancillary acts" not excluded from the definition of courier, while in Chum's case, they judged that the High Court judge was incorrect to hold that it was unsafe to explore the evidence from the first phase of the trial to decide if he was a courier, while noting that the evidence of Chum's mental state should have been presented earlier in the original trial.
