THE JURY SYSTEM

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 8, 10 July 1923, Page 4

THE JURY SYSTEM

IS IT OPEN TO ABUSES?

THE CROWN'S RIGHT OF

CHALLENGE

ALLEGED STOPPING.

The Juries Amendment Bill, ■ which provides among other tilings for increased payments by litigants in respect of juries, and includes certain clauses of a.machinery nature, was before the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. .The second reading discussion traversed tho whole jury system, and there were few references to the actual Bill. The discussion was, nevertheless, a very interesting one, for it covered alleged abuses of the jury system, and the leaders of the Liberal and Labour Parties joined iv condemning |,he provision in the Crimes Act which gives tho Crown the unlimited right to stand'jurors aside. There was an. allegation that the Crown could sUiif the juries, and a plea that women should be allowed to sit on juries. The provisions of the Hill t-- O re Wefiy outlmcd by the Minister, of Justice, iho Hon. C. .T. Pan-.

The Leader of the Opposition said he j desired to make the Bill the medium j of a progressive and forward movement. In. Committee he would move several I amendments, one in the direction of pro- I viding that women should be permitted j lo sit on juries. There were some cases which could be better tried by women, j Much assistance could be given to the Crown and to the prisoners if mixed juries were allowed. The. knowledge some women had would make them most valuable. The present was an a ire for the emancipation of women, and it was ;» queer thing that a country with such ;i broad franchise as New Zealand had j not returned a woman to Parliament. Instances of women fainting under stress of emotion were quoted against ■women. There were men'who fainted under similar circumstances. The entrance into the barristerial field had not been marked by any. loss of dignity-to the profession; in fact, the.dignity of the profession had been increased. He was determined to divide the House on the amendment. It had been suggested that there should bo a distinction' between ' criminal and civil cases, and he was prepared, if-the Minister would accept the amendment, to see. it applied to civil cases only. He would like to blaze the trail. Another -v amendment ho desired was one that, would limit the Croon's right to challenge jurymen by orderin."' them to stand down. The" unlimited rights existing to-day meant that the Crown could pack a jury, and do so with the. authority of Parliament. . Counsel for a prisoner had the right to 'six challenges only. The mlit of the Crown to pick its own jury was a wrong thing. ,i II- was unfair ami unjust. Ho knew what could be done and what had been dono "I know what lam talking about," said Mr. 'Wilford Mr. H,'E. Holland (Buller): "So do The Leader of the Opposition suggested that Court fees should .be decreased, l'p-day, the Government was making a profit out of litigation. Lawyers' fees wore heavy enough. . The price a litigant had to pay for juries should not be increased. Court fees had mounted up tremendously during the last five years ; thfi advance was quite surprising', SOJUE RECOLLECTIONS. . Mr. H. E. Holland (Buller) said that under the proposed new rate a juror on a jury _of twelve would receive' 13s 4d, hut a juror on a jury of four would receive 15s. He saw no reason for the distinction. He snpportcd Mv.'Wilford's remarks in reference to women, and also m regard to the Crown's unlimited -light of ehallenee. He had vivid recollections of the 1913-14 trials. The' Leader of the Opposition was his (Air. Holland's) couu-. sal. Mr. Wilford exhausted his six-chal-lenges, but the Crown Prosecutor stood down 25 men before ho secured a juryto his liking. Under such circumstance's jnstieo was not possible. The verdict was a foregone conclusion. The Crown Prosecutor, in the case of political of--euces. was more keen on securing a verdict than aeeunnjf justice. After the 1913 prosecutions, when peculiar methods were employed, the Crown Prosecutor should not have been permitted to take another case.. The Jury system was all right, except when it was abused, and under the law in New Zealand today abase was always possible. He hoped the Minister would agree to an amendment of the law which would place the Crown- and the accused oa an equal footing.

lhe Minister of Justice raised a point of order, The point under discussion had reference to the procedure under the Crimes Act.

The Leader of the Opposition said that challenges to juries were mentioned in the Juries Act, 1908, oven thought the rejerenc was to civil cases only. Tho Speaker ruled against tile Ministpj. Proceeding, Mr. Holland raid it was important that juries should be kept above -suspicion. If 6bere was a-sugges-tion that jury-rigfiinpr was possible "the public would lose confidence in the jury system. It was deplorable that ' tho present, system should operate in New Zealand.

Ihc Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercaroill) said iie was a supporter of the juK system, but as that system was open to so much abuse, reform was needed. As to whether women should sit on juries, he favoured the suggestion. There was a class of caso upon which women should servo. Sexual offenders against women avid children wpvild have a'lwdor time if women .could IJ41 J4 appointed to try them. It would he to the credit of the Government to adopt such a t>ro-

WHAT WOULD THE WOMEN SAY?

n ,T"6 «omo extent Sir. U.A. Wright (Wellington North)'agreed to the suggestion that women should be permitted to sit on juries. , But the only Way ti> carry out the scheme was to make it compulsory. Would women agroc- to compulsory service on .juries? Outside a smell circle few v-omeu would take kindly to compulsory service on juries Kofore supporting the nmendmcnl, ho would likr- to bo quilfj oure that ihu wmncn wanted it. The alleged -parkin-? of .junefr was also referred io by Mr. AVrtphl. ITo lihsJ served on -url-\». nut! he iiacl never Irtiown c f ;i case—a ctiinmnl <:aso—7/hero the Cwwi- l?n>vc-nt(ir scs out. to M.uA a . jury. Everything at; f:,r as fair piny v: UH concerned -was in lh» prisoner s favour. Sometime? s'lroiif. local syinpatby Was mp.uifcii.cd for n man who hail broken tho law,-and Uten the C'i- O wi\ cvmxisi-d H.s lights. IVhap-s tli;-,t was wiiv Lhe rislit w»s thrre. The iiuv system nmio lor fair play f ul - the prisor.cr. A iury \\m always synumthctk-. mid always navo a praonoi- '(.lie benefit cf the doubt. He was not at all satisfied that the present system was as faulty as others made out. There was no chance of an iimocor.t man ■bein"- convicted. FAIR FIELD AXD NO UWVOTJU. Mr. P. Friiser IWdliiigton Central) as-s.i?:-led Ihat -Mr. \Yiij;Vit'ij fears iciiirdinsc wnmsu were croundle.sE. 3f r- "iVi-iHil- . had mado a good point-"v.-lion he relc'rred to tho dilUsuhies that wor.ld faca tho iivcvut'fl v-'ifc and Mother, but, he was sure that lhe Judge would a«epj< a'ay

reasonable excuse from any woman called upon to serve on juries. Women were entitled to Kit on juries just as much as men. Women's societies throughout New Zealand demanded the reform. Britain, American, and other countries had set an example which New Zealand should follow. As to the Crown's right ot challenge, the previous speaker was wide of the mark, aud had not answered the arguments put- forward by the Lead-' ci- of the Opposition and the Leader of the Laliinu- Party. The Labour Party believed in a fair field and no faVour, and that was impossible under the present, .system. Mr W. A. Ycitch (Wahganui) expressed the opinion that Mr. Wright must regard the Courts as institutions for socurino; convictions, otherwise he would have spoken differently. Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) said that as far as women sitting on juries was concerned, he would vote for tne principle, but many safeguards would, be necessary. There was a great deal behind whgt Mr. "Wrijrht had said, Mc.-wrs. T. K. Sidcy (Duiicdin South) and A. L. Montcith (Wellington East) supported the proposal that women should sit on juries.

CROWN PROSECUTORS DEPENDED,

The Minister of Justice, in reply, said that litigants who went to the Supreme Court, should not object lo paying a fair proportion of tho cost of tho'jury. On the general questions raised, ho was not going to deny that there was some dis* satisfaction with the jury system, not becauso tho innocent were convicted, but because the guilty escaped. Iv- a certain class o£ cases juries were wilfully perverse. It was not fair to suggest that a Crown Prosecutor was a Crown persecutor. The Crown had been conspicuously fair in its treatment of cases. The Crown desired- to nrosent the whole truth to the jury. Ho "resented the suggestion that' the Crown lent Hsolf to devious methods. The whole machinery of the Courts tended to give the prisoner- a fair chance. The Crown Prosecutor, too, was fair. A jury always leaned towards the prisoner rather than the Crown, and the feeling with tho average juror was: "Poor devil, wonder how he got there and what csv I do to get.him out of it." The Crown's right-of challenge in -criminal cases was governed by the Crimes Act, and not by the Juries Act. The Crown could not order a man to stand aside without givlii? the reasons provided in tho Crimes Act. Those reasons were reasonable in tae extreme. The juror or counsel could demand that the reason be etated, and the Judge could decide whether the reason was sufficient. There was cause to doubt whether women as a body desired to sit on juries. Every woman between 21 and 60 would bo compelled to serve if the amendment were agreed to. vast majority of the women affected had their - homes and their children, which they could not leave in order to attend the Court. .Did the averago wife want to leave her home to serve a week on a common jury? He agreed that women of experience, culture, and education should have every opportunity of serving on local authorities. On the Bench, as Justices of the 1 eace, they would be useful. The proposed amendment, however, -was goin" too far. It bad been said that women could-claim exemption, but to do that they would have to appear iv open. Court before a Judge.

,-null *"• ,lri'aser (Wellington Central!: 'iliat wouldn't worry many of them :> The Minister: "I venture to say that there are very few whom it would not worry. (Hear, hear.) • The average \voman hates the idea, of (joins into a Court: oven to go into the witness-box." Hie Bill was read a second time and referred, to the Statutes Revision Committee.