濫用職權

FOR someone whose job depends on the integrity of the police force, the Crown prosecutor Nanette Williams does not have complete faith in the boys and girls in blue.
While her role requires her to present evidence provided by the police in state's highest courts, when her long-term partner, Searle Indyk, was arrested for allegedly attacking a neighbour, Ms Williams was highly critical of their efforts.
Standing in Waverley Local Court for Mr Indyk's first appearance in front of a magistrate, Ms Williams accused the police of a ''grave miscarriage of justice'' and of making a ''false arrest''.
...

Today her accusations will be heard, as Mr Indyk is set to face a three-day hearing at the Downing Centre Local Court on charges of assault occasioning bodily harm, common assault and cruelty to an animal. But Ms Williams's claims at that first court appearance have surprised some in the legal profession. While she notified the court she was appearing as a lawyer ''in amicus'', a term that describes a person assisting the court, she did not disclose that Mr Indyk was the father of her son and they live together in Paddington.

上面節錄了SMH今天的新聞報導，我看儍了眼。新省檢察官Nanette Williams為老公抱不平，批評警察檢控不公，受到SMH揶揄，並非使我吃驚之處。我的觀點與報章的不同，就算檢察官的日常工作和警察息息相關，未見得不可以事論事，批評警察。這樣才可以顯示檢察官工作的獨立性，無需仰人鼻息，同一口徑。

我覺得奇怪的是，檢察官怎能夠一下子變臉成為辯方律師，她這樣做甚不妥當。第一，她身為檢察官，為政府僱員，不可能同時私人執業，這樣做有違反新省大律師公會守則之嫌。在本案中，她在法庭上根本就沒有發言權(right of audience)。就算她是被告，她也只可以個人身份出庭，而並非大律師身份。故此，她在法庭以辯方律師身份發言，顯示利益衝突，不切合身份。

再者，她向SMH解釋以amicus curae身份出庭，實屬掩飾濫用職權的狡辯。Amicus curae中文可稱之為「法庭朋友」(a friend of the court)，身份是獨立於與訟雙方的律師，可以向法庭提供法律意見。她老公是被告，她的言論代表老公的立場，怎能叫自己為amicus curae呢？

我也考慮過她是不是兼職檢察官的執業大律師，但在大律師名冊又找不到她的名字，無論如何，她出庭代表老公屬於濫用職權，應該受紀律處分。SMH有心揭露，但功力不足，報導的重點搔不到癢處。

很多時聽到人講，這裏是澳洲，事情總是馬馬虎虎，得過且過。在無奈接納之餘，不要忘記抽離事件，客觀批判，以免流於人云亦云。