JUDGE AND JURY

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3190, 14 September 1917, Page 7

JUDGE AND JURY

A QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE BUNCH Some utterances of the Chief Justice relating to the jury system were the subject of a question in tho Legislative Council yesterday. The Hon.. 0. Samuel, in accordance with notice, asked the Lrader of the Council "whether his attention has been, called to a etatement published in. Auckland newspapers, headed 'Jury Again Disagrees/ to tho effect that His Honour the Chief Justice, on tbo second trial of &. woman accused of a crime, 'summed up against the accused, and, on the Crown. Prosecutor applying for a new trial, eaid, 'ho would take it upon himself to order the trial to bo taken at the next criminal 6ittings i at Hamilton.' (about eighty-six 'miles from Auckland, where the accused and her counsel and witnesses reside), 'so that there would be no delay. There had been two trials in Auckland, and it was apparently useless having a third. He was not going U> have tho iair name of the city smirched.' "Whether his attention has been, called to a Press Association telegram, published throughout New Zealand last week, statiag that, at a third trial at Napier of a man charged with manslaughter, in connection with a collision between, a inotor-car and a bicycle, His Honour the Chief Justice said that the present law, requiring unanimity in a jury before a convict)on or an acquittal, was a perfect farce.' " " The Hon. J. AlacGregor raised a point of order. He said that the questions were improper, since they disregarded a i well-established rule of Parliamentary procedure that tho conduct of the Judges could be discussed only on a substantive motion. The questions contained a reflection upon the Judiciary, and so violated the constitutional rule of the independence of the , Judges. The questions as originally placed on the Order Paper contained definite comment on the conduct of the Judges. . The Speaker 6aid it would not bo in. order to refer to matter that did not appear on the Order Paper. The Hon. 0. Samuel: 1 do not object.

Sir Francis Bell: I do. Mr. HacGregor said the second question contained a. clear suggestion that the Chief Justice had done something he should not have done. He submitted that the questions should Dot be allowed. , . . , The Hon. 0. Samuel aaid the point ol order closely approached a question of privilege. The first duty of Parliament was to the people, whose confidence- in their legislature must be maintained. It was time that allegations against the personal or public probity or characters of the Judges were not permissible. But he had felt it his duty to place the questions on the Order Paper, and lie submitted that they dM not contravene any rule. The questions contained no comment and no reflection upon the conduct of a Jud»e.' But a certain statement, tending to mould public opinion in a certain direction, had been published throughout New Zealand, and he felt impelled to draw attention to the matter in tho public interest, lest misconceptions should bo allowed to arise in the minds of the people. . The Hon. T. Mac Gibbon said tho case mentioned in tho second question was still subjudice, and the question, therefore, was not permissible. The Speaker said that tho questions as originally submitted liad been materially different from their present form. Certain portions of the questions had been deleted. It had been his duty, to seo that the Supreme Court Judges were protected and at the same time that the privileges of members of tho .Council were protected. Ho ruled that in tnel* present form tho questions were "In or. "I have referred both questions to my honourable colleague tho Minister of Justice, who asksnio to state in reply that his attention has not boeh called, to ; the publications ■ referred to otherwise than by the honourable gentleman s questions,*' said Sir liWcisßell "I desire to add on my own behalf tho following quotation from a statement made to the House of Commons by Mr. Asquith when Prime Minister: 'This House is very scrupulous to discourage anything in the nature of censure, or even of comment, within these- walls upon the doings or savings,of His Majesty's Judges. ,