Noor Farhana binti Adham

On the court record

Appellate criminal prosecution in the Court of Appeal, with a recurring focus on the validity of trafficking charges and the drug presumptions.

Noor Farhana binti Adham appears in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), where the reported decisions place her on the prosecution side and as respondent in criminal appeals. The dominant subject is drug trafficking under "seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952" (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), argued as "rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman" (appeals against conviction and sentence) from the High Court.

A recurring and more technical thread is the sufficiency of the charge itself. Several matters raise whether a section 39B(1)(a) charge is bad in law — for instance where the particulars or the statutory description are said to be defective — a question that can determine the fate of an appeal independently of the trial evidence. The work also engages the statutory presumptions that structure a trafficking prosecution: the possession presumption in "seksyen 37(d)" and the trafficking presumption in "seksyen 37(da)" of the Act, together with the adverse-inference provision in "seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950" (section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950).

As respondent for the prosecution, the task recorded in these decisions is to defend the High Court's conviction and sentence against challenge, meeting arguments on the validity of the charge, the drawing of the presumptions, and the adequacy of the trial court's evaluation of the evidence. The profile is a focused appellate criminal practice, concentrated in the Court of Appeal and organised around the recurring doctrinal questions that arise in serious drug prosecutions rather than around primary fact-finding. The reported appeals are argued as challenges to, and defences of, High Court convictions, and the recurring contest is whether a defect in the charge or an error in applying the presumptions is enough to unsettle a conviction that the trial court, having seen and heard the witnesses, considered safe on the evidence before it.