Faiz Taqiuddin

On the court record

Faiz Taqiuddin appears in the corpus as an appellate criminal defence advocate in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), in a group of related appeals arising from a single prosecution for trafficking in dangerous drugs under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Appearing for the appellant in each, the appeals turned on the proof of possession and knowledge and on the operation of the statutory presumptions. The court's own framing was in Malay: the central question was the 'pembuktian milikan, jagaan dan kawalan serta pengetahuan terhadap dadah' (the proof of possession, custody and control, and knowledge, of the drugs), where the prosecution case was that the appellant had the power to deal with the drugs as owner to the exclusion of others, that the drugs were found as a result of the appellant's 'tunjuk arah' (pointing out), and that the key to the premises where the drugs were found was in the appellant's trouser pocket. The defence pressed whether the 'rantaian keterangan' (chain of evidence) had been broken, in particular because the drugs were sent late by the police to the 'Jabatan Kimia' (the Chemistry Department) for analysis, and engaged the interplay between the 'anggapan statutori di bawah Seksyen 37(da)' (the statutory presumption under section 37(da) of the Act) and the 'anggapan bertentangan di bawah Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950' (the adverse presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950), the latter arising from the prosecution's failure to call as witnesses the suspects who had been remanded together with the appellant. The defence also relied on the appellant's own conduct being consistent with innocence, and on the proposition that the drugs having been found through the appellant's pointing out could cut both ways once the chain of custody was in doubt. Because the appeals arose from the same facts and were heard together, they form one sustained appellate challenge to a capital drug conviction, fought on possession, the chain of custody and the statutory presumptions, and on whether the prosecution's evidential gaps entitled the appellant to be acquitted.