Tan Sri Dr. Muhammad Shafee bin Abdullah

On the court record

Tan Sri Dr. Muhammad Shafee bin Abdullah appears in the reported corpus as senior criminal-defence and constitutional counsel in matters of considerable public prominence. Several reported decisions concern serious drug charges: in a High Court trial the accused persons were charged under sections 39B, 9 and 6B of the Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), and the court's catchwords record that Pendakwa Raya gagal tunjukkan kes prima facie - OKT1 dan OKT2 dibebas dan dilepaskan (the Public Prosecutor failed to establish a prima facie case — the two accused were acquitted and discharged). His criminal-appellate work also includes a High Court appeal against a Sessions Court conviction for market manipulation under section 84(1) of the Securities Industry Act 1983, where the accused had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment and a fine.

His constitutional and public-law practice is equally weighty. In Federal Court proceedings he appeared as respondent's counsel in a judicial review that examined the role of the Attorney General under Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of Court 2012, the reception of fresh evidence at the appellate stage under rule 7(3A) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 and the threshold set by Ladd v Marshall, and the reviewability of a decision of the Pardons Board in the exercise of the royal pardon. Taken together the reported matters place him at the apex of criminal-defence and constitutional litigation, appearing for accused persons and respondents in trials and appeals that turn on the prima facie threshold, sentencing under regulatory statutes, and the limits of executive and prosecutorial discretion. He acts consistently on the defence and challenge side of the record in these reported decisions. In the market-manipulation appeal the judge, having read the submissions of both parties and combed through the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, agreed with the Sessions Court that the defence advanced was an afterthought and a mere denial, and on that basis declined to disturb the conviction and sentence.