Salehuddin Saidin & Assoc (Shah Alam)

On the court record

The firm's record concentrates on the statutory presumptions in capital drug appeals, particularly the countervailing presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, and the effect of trial-counsel incompetence on the safety of a conviction.

Salehuddin Saidin & Assoc (Shah Alam) appears in the corpus as appellate counsel in dangerous-drugs prosecutions, acting for appellants before the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) in appeals against conviction and sentence, largely conducted in Bahasa Malaysia.

The firm's reported work centres on charges of trafficking under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), in one instance read with a charge under seksyen 12(2) punishable under section 39A(2). Across these appeals the firm advanced arguments directed at the statutory presumptions and the adequacy of the trial. A recurring contention concerned the countervailing presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 and the requirement of a withholding or suppression of evidence, the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and the interpretation of trafficking (pengedaran dadah), together with section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the question of a failure of justice (kegagalan keadilan) or substantial injustice.

In one connected pair of appeals the firm advanced a defence, confirmed by a second appellant, that the first appellant did not reside at the premises where the drugs were found, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove possession and knowledge, that the trial judge had erred in failing to raise the countervailing presumption under section 114(g), that material witnesses had not been called, and that the appellants had been prejudiced by the alleged incompetence of their trial counsel, including the significance of another individual's DNA at the scene.

The accused persons are referred to here by their procedural role. The firm's record is a focused criminal-appellate practice in capital drug matters, conducted fluently in Bahasa Malaysia. The consistent structure of these appeals, in which the contest turns on whether the trial court correctly applied the trafficking presumption, whether it should have drawn the countervailing inference from uncalled witnesses, and whether the defence was fairly conducted and considered, marks the firm as counsel accustomed to the evidential architecture of a section 39B prosecution and to identifying the misdirection or omission on which the safety of a conviction may ultimately depend.