THE JURY SYSTEM.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15989, 25 August 1917, Page 4

THE JURY SYSTEM.

« amending bill before the LEGISLATIVE COUNCH.. (SOCIAL, TO "TUB press.") WELLE I *GTON, August 21. The debate on tlio Jurios Act Amend-ment-Bill was continued in the Legislative Council ibis afternoon. The lion. J. Barr said that the requirement of unanimity in the dosisions of juries seemed to him to be absolutely ridiculous. Ho did not believe in tho bare majority., since that arrangement might leave tho decision to one man. HtTwonld vote for tho Bill without committing himself to the three-fourths majority. The lion. T. MacGiboon said ho dul not beliovo that any exception c-ould reasonably be taken to a three-iourths majority verdict. Tho Hon. Sir William Hall-Jones said that ho would support the Bill, but would propose, if the measure reached tho Committeo stage, that a five-sixths majority should be required to secure a conviction, and that unanimity of tho jury should bo demanded in capital cases. Thero wcro men in Parliament who had encroached upon the privileges of the people by depriving persons accused of sedition. of the right to trial by jury. Tho Hon. J. T. Paul said that thero was now a new offence of "seditious tendency," tho interpretation depending upon tho magistrate or judge. He hoped there would bo an opportunity to discuss that point. He would support tho Bill, but he would bo no party to any weakening of tho jury system. Sir Francis Bell said that Section 1.18 of the Crimes Act, relating to the offence of inviting disaffection against the Throne, tho Constitution, tho Government, or the adminsitration of justice, was subject to tho qualification that 110 person should be deemed to have seditious intention only because ho intended in good faith to show thai his Majesty had been mistaken in his measures, or to point out errors or defects iii tho Government or Constitution, or to iucite his Majesty's subjects to attempt to prccuro by lawful means tho alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution, tho Governmont, or the laws.

The Hon. I.?. Harris opposed the Bill. Tho Hon. J. Mar-Tiro cor," in reply said thai: he did not intend to press the Bill during tho present session. He realised thai the country would have to bo educated to accept the amencmcnt of the .jury system. He hoped eventually lo sec juries replaced by a of three judges. His proposal to legalise a tliree-fourthk majority constituted an important measure of reform. Ho did not believe any of tho New Zealand judges were op'posM to trial by jury, oven i n civil cases. Tho tendency of judge?, as a matter of fact was to put the rcsDonsibilitv of drvi-' S!o n on juries in order to avoid accepting it themselves. Ho would ho willing to accept a five-sixths innjoritv with unanimity in capital case?. Tho so-vmd reading of the Bill was n iT» c ved by ].3 votes to 2.