THE GRAND JURY.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 8, 4 October 1907, Page 4

THE GRAND JURY.

The action of the Grand Jury at New Plymouth, which, alter being emphatically directed Ibb the Judge to bring in a true biff against the persons involved in the Opunake lynching case, returned ..no bill, comes closely enough upon the heels of a similar action by a Christchurch Grand Jury to attract public interest to the Grand Jury system. Public opinion, we think, is against the retention of what to most men has probably appeared to be a fifth wheel in the coach of our criminal law, but public opinion is not always a safe guide in legal questions, and in this particular question, if we read it aright, it runs contrary to the weighty opinion of the Chief Justice. Sir Robert Stout thinks Grand Juries ought to -be retained as a bulwark of liberty. They may go wrong, but that, he says, is not a reason for their abolition; and in any case, since they perform their duties : in camera, it is impossible fairly to criticise any decision at which they may arrive. It seems to us that discussion should begin with inquiry whether the Grand 'Jury is necessary, wh?'r it discharges any necß*> ; ••. "unction for which our sy;. : t >iV criminal law supplies no n; executant, and whether the ouiy direction, in which it can be destructively effective is not opposed to the general current of law. A Grand - Jury can only return a true bill or no bill. It is a secret court sitting in judgment, and that is not a desirable thing. When it returns a true bill, the vice of secret- hearing is removed by the subsequent public investigation before the petty jury, and the secrecy thus becomes harmless only in those cases in which the Grand Jury is not really operative at all. It is when the Grand Jury becomes actively operative that it becomes productive of public,- uneasiness. The public mind is, in some cases, as much disturbed at. acquittal by a secret court as it would be -by a conviction that' followed a Star Chamber prosecution. .The duty of a Grand Jury is almost exactly identical with the duty of a magistrate— the duty, that is to say, of deciding whfether the evidence warrants the remission of a case to the petty jury. It is difficult to see in what respect the Grand Jury, in its present form, assists the machinery of the law: it is very clear that, by its secret character, it may defeat the ends of justice and produce public unrest. We by no means call for its abolition without further inquiry, although in doing so we should doubtless find much support from the busy men who make up the Grand Jury panel, and who have every incentive to the rapidity and perfunctorinesa which notoriously rule the Grand

Jury's procedure. The system might commend itself to the procr per authorities as at least a subject for " reconsideration."