Muhammad Aidil Akmal Bin Sharidan

On the court record

Muhammad Aidil Akmal Bin Sharidan 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 drug-trafficking prosecution and heard together. Appearing for the appellant in each, the appeals concerned charges under 'seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952' (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under section 39B(2), and turned on the knowledge and intention of those found in connection with the drugs. The issues identified on appeal were whether there was an absence of the accused persons' knowledge of the drugs that had been found; whether there was an absence of knowledge of the true nature of the drugs being carried; whether the defence of an 'innocent carrier' was made out; whether there was 'ugutan' (duress); whether a Notis Alcontara had been properly given so as to put the prosecution on notice of the defence; and whether due consideration had been given to the evidence of a defence witness. These questions engaged the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) of the Act and the defence of an act to which a person is compelled by threats under section 94 of the Penal Code — the twin pillars on which an innocent-carrier defence to a section 39B charge is usually built. Because the appeals arose from the same facts and were heard together, they constitute a single sustained appellate challenge to a set of capital drug convictions, fought on knowledge, the innocent-carrier and duress defences, and the adequacy of the Alcontara notice. The interplay between the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) and the compulsion defence under section 94 of the Penal Code is a demanding one for the defence, because the presumption places the burden on the accused to show he did not know what he carried, while the duress defence requires proof of a threat of a particular gravity before it can excuse the act. The profile is that of defence counsel concentrated on the most serious drug work at the appellate level, where the presumptions and the recognised defences to carrying drugs are decisive.