Nurul A'tikah Rusli
About Nurul A'tikah Rusli
Nurul A'tikah Rusli appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025). These were heard before MYCOA (3).
On the court record
Shows the Court of Appeal balancing individual mitigation against the public-interest deterrence principle in sentencing for an alternative drug charge under sections 12(2) and 39A(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
In the appellate work collected here, Nurul A'tikah Rusli appears as counsel for the appellants in a set of drug-related sentence appeals heard together in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). The appellants had faced an alternative charge under the drug-control legislation, described by the court as a "pertuduhan pilihan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952" (an alternative charge under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable "di bawah seksyen 39A(2)" (under section 39A(2) of the same Act) and read "bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan" (together with section 34 of the Penal Code, which governs common intention).
The appeals were directed at sentence rather than conviction, and the argument turned on mitigation — "mitigasi perayu-perayu" (the appellants' pleas in mitigation). The competing consideration, which the court articulated in Malay, was that "kepentingan awam harus diberikan keutamaan melebihi kepentingan individu" (the public interest must be given priority over individual interest), reflecting the settled sentencing principle that drug offences are treated as serious — "kesalahan memiliki dadah adalah serius" (the offence of possessing drugs is serious).
The sentence recorded by the court was "hukuman pemenjaraan selama sembilan (9) tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan sepuluh kali (10) sebatan" (a term of nine years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and ten strokes of the cane). As counsel for the appellants, Nurul A'tikah Rusli's function was to advance the personal mitigating circumstances against that backdrop of public-interest sentencing, urging the appellate court to temper the custodial term and the caning. The decision is a representative example of how the Court of Appeal balances individual mitigation against the deterrent policy that Malaysian courts apply to drug offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and of how sentence is calibrated where the charge proceeds on the alternative-charge footing of section 12(2) read with section 39A(2).
How many cases has Nurul A'tikah Rusli appeared in?
Nurul A'tikah Rusli appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025).
Which courts does Nurul A'tikah Rusli appear in?
Nurul A'tikah Rusli appears before MYCOA (3).
What was the nature of the charge in these appeals?
An alternative charge described as "pertuduhan pilihan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952" (under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under section 39A(2) and read with section 34 of the Penal Code (common intention).
What sentencing tension did the Court of Appeal weigh?
The appellants' mitigation against the principle, stated by the court as "kepentingan awam harus diberikan keutamaan melebihi kepentingan individu" (the public interest must take priority over individual interest). The recorded sentence was nine years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and ten strokes of the cane.