Collin Arvind Andrew

On the court record

Collin Arvind Andrew appears in the reported corpus as counsel in appellate criminal and review litigation, with an appearance at the Federal Court on the extraordinary review jurisdiction. He was engaged as intervener in a Federal Court matter invoking rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 and the inherent powers of the court, directed at ensuring that all sentences passed are in accordance with law and at avoiding a miscarriage of justice in exceptional circumstances, where fresh evidence was in issue — the narrow jurisdiction by which the apex court may reopen a concluded matter to prevent injustice.

His reported work also engages criminal procedure and sentencing. He appeared as respondent's counsel in a Court of Appeal matter on the interpretation of section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which governs remand applications, and the question whether only the investigating officer in charge must personally appear before the Magistrate or whether another officer may do so if the investigating officer is unavailable. In a further Court of Appeal matter argued on a judgment in Bahasa Malaysia he was engaged as appellant's counsel in a migrant-smuggling appeal under seksyen 26A Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 (section 26A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007), where the public interest and the seriousness of the offence were weighed against the mitigating factors, and the sentence of imprisonment was held not to be manifestly excessive. Across these reported decisions his work spans the review jurisdiction of the apex court, the procedure of remand and the sentencing of a migrant-smuggling offence, marking Collin Arvind Andrew as counsel engaged in appellate criminal and review litigation. Across these reported decisions his work reaches from the apex court's power to reopen a concluded case, through the procedure that governs a remand application, to the sentencing of a serious offence, marking an appellate criminal practice concerned both with the fairness of the process and with the proportionality of punishment.