Grace S. Nathan

On the court record

The firm's record illustrates criminal-defence practice in capital drug cases, including how a prosecution's multiple versions, a failure of full and frank disclosure, or a properly given but uninvestigated Alcontara notice can lead to acquittal at the close of the prosecution case.

Grace S. Nathan appears in the corpus as counsel in dangerous-drugs litigation, acting both for appellants on appeal and for the accused at first instance, in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan).

On appeal the firm acted for appellants challenging convictions for trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, read in one matter with section 34 of the Penal Code. The arguments centred on whether the trial judge had properly evaluated the defence, whether the appellant's assertion that he had no knowledge of the drugs and was unaware that the transaction involved drugs had been considered, and whether the appellant had been entrapped and used as a drug mule. A related appeal engaged the parole-evidence rule under sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1950, the credibility of witnesses under section 134, the adverse-inference provision in section 114(g), and the merely corroborative status of fingerprint and DNA evidence.

Equally striking is the firm's work at first instance as counsel for the accused, where the outcomes favoured the defence. In one High Court matter the accused was acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case because the prosecution's evidence disclosed more than one version and the raiding officer had not made full and frank disclosure to the investigating officer, leading to an adverse inference. In another, the accused was acquitted of trafficking, with the court accepting a successfully raised defence of innocent carrier supported by a good Alcontara notice that had not been investigated, the court emphasising the accused's right to a fair trial. The firm's record is a dedicated criminal-defence practice in serious drug cases, and it is notable for the proportion of matters in which the defence prevailed at the close of the prosecution case rather than only on appeal, a pattern that reflects sustained attention to the integrity of the investigation, the completeness of disclosure and the proper handling of statutory presumptions before an accused is ever called to enter a defence.