Ahmad Ishrakh Bin Saad

On the court record

Ahmad Ishrakh Bin Saad appears in the reported corpus as criminal-defence counsel, appearing as appellant's counsel in serious criminal appeals before the High Court and Court of Appeal. His reported work includes a rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman (an appeal against conviction and sentence) on a charge of rape under section 376 of the Penal Code, said to involve an offence between an uncle and a niece, where a distinctive ground was whether the change of the presiding Sessions Court judge had prejudiced the appellant's rights, engaging section 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which addresses the position where one judge succeeds another partway through a trial.

The remainder of his reported appearances are drug-trafficking appeals. In a Court of Appeal matter both accused had been charged with trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, punishable under section 39B(2), and sentenced, the appeal testing the conviction and sentence. In a further appeal argued on a judgment in Bahasa Malaysia the issues at the appellate stage were sama ada terdapat ketiadaan pengetahuan tertuduh-tertuduh terhadap dadah yang dijumpai (whether the accused lacked knowledge of the drugs found), a recurring battleground in trafficking appeals where the prosecution relies on possession and the statutory presumptions. Across these reported decisions his work centres on the defence of grave offences on appeal — the fairness of the trial where the tribunal changes, and the proof of knowledge and possession in a drug case — marking Ahmad Ishrakh Bin Saad as counsel engaged in serious criminal-defence appellate work, testing both the procedural regularity of the trial below and the sufficiency of the evidence relied on to convict. The reported drug appeals turn on the familiar architecture of a section 39B case — the statutory presumptions of possession and trafficking, and the evaluation of the defence — while the rape appeal engages the fairness of a trial conducted in part before a different judge, together marking a practice built around the defence of grave charges on appeal and the procedural safeguards that attend them.