Tendency To Elect Trial For Minor Offences Criticised

Press, Volume C, Issue 29503, 3 May 1961, Page 16

Tendency To Elect Trial For Minor Offences Criticised

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, May 2. There was a growing tendency for those charged with relatively minor offences to elect trial by jury rather than summary jurisdiction by a magistrate, but he was far from persuaded that justice was more likely to be done than in the Magistrate’s Court, the Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) said in his charge to the grand jury at the opening of the criminal session in the Supreme Court at Wellington today.

His Honour said there were 27 bills of' indictment, some containing several quite separate counts and some involving more than one accused. During the last two sessions of the Court there Was a comparable number of cases. At both those sessions the list was enlarged by the cases arising from contracts during the construction. of Rongotai airport. There were no such cases at the present session, and the 27 bills indicated an appreciable increase in the normal number of criminal trials usually disposed of by the Court.

That did not indicate any increase in the amount of crime in the community. Rather it reflected a growing tendency for those charged with minor offences to elect trial by jury rather than the summary jurisdiction of a magistrate, his Honour said. “That tendency has become more and more apparent as the years go by. There may be good and sound reasons for it, but I am far from persuaded that such justice is more likely for minor offences than! in the Magistrate’s Court. “Justice must be done to the prosecutor, as well as to the accused, and it is not

to my mind convincing that trial by jury is more just than by trained and experienced magistrates against whose decisions there was a right of appeal. Such an assertion would be an unwarranted slur on the integrity and judgment of the magistrates in this Dominion."

His Honour mentioned one of the cases set down for trial which involved the alleged theft of £2 ss. The case had already involved a full day’s hearing in the Magistrate's Court, and the same witnesses had to be present in the Supreme Court. Then, if a true bill were returned, some 30 common jurors would have to be summoned and from them a panel of 12 chosen. The expenses of all 30 jurors had to be paid, as well as those of the witnesses, other than police officers, for their various appearances. Counsel for the prosecution and for the accused had also to be paid. Police officers who

were witnesses were withdrawn from other duties. The whole proceedings involved substantial expense to the country.

“This is the most glaring instance of what I have in mind, but there are a number of other cases in the list that are very similar. I realise, of course, that a conviction for theft is a very serious matter for the accused, and if only by a jury could he be properly convicted I would not be making these observations. “But is it the only just way of deciding relatively minor charges? That is not a question for me to decide, but I feel it my duty to draw the public's attention to the number of minor charges coming before the Supreme Court

“There are many other matters that must of necessity come before the Supreme Court, and justice for them must be delayed by the ever-mounting number of criminal trials.” he said.