寃獄索償

前些時Sydney Morning Herald報導過馬裔澳洲母女的寃獄事件, 今天刊出跟進報導:

Mother and daughter jailed for importing tea the ABF wrongly identified as drugs

澳洲邊境管制處(ABF, Australian Border Force)今年1月在例行郵包截查了由馬來西亞運到悉尼的紅糖羗母茶, 快速毒品測試顯示可能是興奮劑, 於是通知警區調包送遞往馬裔母女的住所, 然後拘捕檢控她們販運毒品, 因為控罪嚴重, 所以兩人被收押了。因為這是涉嫌進口毒品案, 司法管轄權歸聯邦警察(Australian Federal Police), 聯邦警察在2月的時候寫信給執法的警區, 說明不能依賴ABF的快速測試結果, 因為這結果沒確定性, 應獨立測試是否興奮劑。可是, 警區探員「闊佬懶理」 (懶得理會), 也沒通知被告的律師。以下兩段報導聯邦警察寫給警區的電郵內容:

A forensic operator from the AFP wrote to Bankstown Detective Senior Constable Tara Conaghan in February, advising that she would need to have the sample tested independently to be certain that it contained Phenmetrazine.

“Mate in a nutshell we cannot take from this ABF result that the sample contains or does not contain Phenmetrazine,” he wrote. The ABF “hazmat” test had only identified Phenmetrazine as the fourth most likely substance contained in the seized shipment, behind sugar, sucrose and powdered sugar, he said.

到了4月, AFP再寫給有關探員, 通知她之前兩批類似的羗茶化驗顯示並非毒品。折騰了4個月, 母女才獲保釋, 到了8月, 警方獲得正式化驗結果才撤銷兩人的控罪。這母女就坐了4個月的寃牢(wrongful conviction)。Wrongful conviction並非狹指錯誤定罪, 也包含未被檢控、已被落案後撤銷控罪, 也包括上訴得直等各種情況。因這冤獄提出索償是訟費抑或包括坐牢的賠償, 報導沒有講清楚。 單是訟費就沒有理由不賠, 索取冤獄的賠償卻比較困難, 因為普通法及澳洲(各省, Australian Capital Territory除外)的成文法(statue)都沒有訂出wrongful conviction的補償法例, 我相信這母女依據被惡意檢控(malicious prosecution)為申索的依據。 這探員的不作為(nonfeasance)程度也相當離譜, 若果執法機制穩妥, 根本不會發生這種事。不過澳洲人辦事效率, 不要盡信, 總之一言難盡。我明白政府「依法辦事」(因為沒有冤獄賠償的法律)而抗拒索償的立場, 就算母女申索失敗, 政府也應該作出恩恤賠償(ex gratia payment), 才能彰顯公義。

我每次到臺灣, 都會帶黑糖羗母茶回來, 以後就要格外小心了。