Nurul Aqilah Syaqirin Binti Nor
About Nurul Aqilah Syaqirin Binti Nor
Nurul Aqilah Syaqirin Binti Nor appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025). These were heard before MYCOA (3).
On the court record
A representative example of appellate sentencing in drug cases, where individual mitigation is balanced against the public-interest deterrence principle under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
Nurul Aqilah Syaqirin Binti Nor appears in this corpus as counsel for the appellants in drug-related sentence appeals decided together in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). The appellants had been dealt with on an alternative charge 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 addresses acts done in furtherance of a common intention).
The contest on appeal concerned sentence. Counsel advanced the appellants' mitigation — "mitigasi perayu-perayu" — against the sentencing court's starting premise that drug offending is treated as grave and that, in the court's words, "kepentingan awam harus diberikan keutamaan melebihi kepentingan individu" (the public interest must be given priority over individual interest). The court proceeded on the footing that "kesalahan memiliki dadah adalah serius" (the offence of possessing drugs is serious), and the recorded outcome was "hukuman pemenjaraan selama sembilan (9) tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan sepuluh kali (10) sebatan" (nine years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and ten strokes of the cane).
The role of counsel for the appellants in a matter of this kind is to press the individual circumstances of each appellant — antecedents, personal hardship, and the particular facts of possession — so as to persuade the appellate court that the custodial term and caning should be reduced, notwithstanding the deterrent policy that Malaysian courts consistently apply to offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The decision is a clear example of appellate sentencing practice in the drug jurisdiction, where mitigation is weighed against a strong public-interest presumption in favour of deterrent punishment for possession offences charged under the section 12(2) and section 39A(2) framework.
How many cases has Nurul Aqilah Syaqirin Binti Nor appeared in?
Nurul Aqilah Syaqirin Binti Nor appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025).
Which courts does Nurul Aqilah Syaqirin Binti Nor appear in?
Nurul Aqilah Syaqirin Binti Nor appears before MYCOA (3).
In what court and field does this counsel's reported work fall?
In the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), in the field of criminal sentencing for drug offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — an alternative charge under section 12(2) punishable under section 39A(2), read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
What was the recorded sentence?
The court recorded "hukuman pemenjaraan selama sembilan (9) tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan sepuluh kali (10) sebatan" (nine years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and ten strokes of the cane), reached by weighing the appellants' mitigation against the public interest.