Noorin binti Badaruddin

On the judicial record

An appellate judge whose reported corpus is anchored in drug-trafficking and general criminal appeals, with the statutory trafficking presumptions and questions of possession and evidence recurring throughout.

Justice Noorin binti Badaruddin sits mainly in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), with some High Court work, and the reported decisions in this corpus are heavily criminal, led by drug appeals. Trafficking appeals under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952) recur, engaging the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37 and, in one appeal, the presumption in section 37(da)(xvi) arising from possession of a large quantity of methamphetamine. The judgments examine the familiar elements of possession — kawalan dan jagaan (custody and control) and pengetahuan (knowledge) — and the drawing of factual inferences, including the treatment of a single witness's evidence (saksi tunggal) under the Evidence Act 1950 and common intention under seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (section 34 of the Penal Code).

The corpus also reaches the general criminal law and criminal procedure. A murder appeal turns on the defence of insanity under seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan (section 84 of the Penal Code); another appeal addresses the interpretation of section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code governing remand applications, and whether only the investigating officer must appear before the magistrate. An appeal under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act (ATIPSOM) raises whether the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to challenge the admissibility of an investigation statement.

Civil appeals also appear, including an employment matter on whether an employee was coerced into a mutual-separation-scheme contract, and a striking-out appeal under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court. The parol-evidence rule under sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 surfaces again in a contractual context. Some appeals turn closely on the arrest and discovery evidence — for example the credibility of police witnesses who testified to finding car keys used to unlock a vehicle in which drugs were recovered — and on whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to trigger the statutory presumption before the defence was called. The overall picture is of an appellate judge whose reported work is anchored in the criminal law, particularly narcotics and the elements of possession, while extending into employment, striking-out and other civil-procedure appeals.