In Aw Fatt Sin v PP [2026] CLJU 564, our Managing Partner, Zander Lim, appeared before the Court of Appeal in Kota Kinabalu, presided by YA Dato’ Haji Azman Bin Abdullah, together with YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal Bin Ramli and YA Datuk Noorin Binti Badaruddin.
The issue was straightforward but important.
When an accused is called to enter his defence, must the trial judge explain the effect of rebuttable presumptions and how to rebut them?
The Appellant said yes.
The Court of Appeal disagreed.
The distinction is simple.
If you are unrepresented, the court has a duty under section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code to explain the case against you and the implications of entering a defence.
If you are represented, that duty falls away.
Why?
Because that responsibility lies with your lawyer.
There is no requirement for the court to explain the legal effect of presumptions or the standard needed to rebut them. The court is not there to step into the role of counsel.
This goes beyond drug cases.
The same reasoning may apply to other statutory presumptions, including under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009.
The takeaway is clear.
When you are represented, your defence depends entirely on your counsel’s ability to understand the law, identify the issues, and respond strategically.
The court will not fill that gap.
Which makes one thing critical.
Choosing the right lawyer.
In commercial crime and white collar matters, the issues are often technical, layered, and time sensitive. Experience is not just helpful. It is decisive.
