The Globe. WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1876.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 644, 12 July 1876, Page 2

The Globe. WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1876.

A Biil for the amendment of the Coroners Act has been recently introduced into the Assembly by the Minister of Justice, which provides for a total change in the law hitherto prevailing upon this subject, and for many reasons we heartily welcome the action taken by the Government. Tho Bill itself is a very short one, and provides that Resident Magistrates throughout the colony shall be ex officio coroners ; the number of jurors is not to exceed seven. It also empowers the Coroner, where jurors cannot be obtained, to hold an inquest himself, the reason _ for his so doing being communicated to the Minister of Justice; and the fees now payable to Coroners for holding inquests are abolished. The first provision we look upon as one which will tend fur more to the safety of the public than the present system, for the reason that the officer charged with the duty of holding the enquiry will be not only one trained by the experience gained in the discharge of his duties as a magistrate to take evidence, but also to weigh it from a legal point of view, and therefore more likely to arrive at a just conclusion on the tacts adduced, than a layman. As a matter of necessity from his daily experience, a Resident Magistrate is bound, to some extent at least, to acquire a knowledge of the law which will be invaluable'in the carrying out of the duties attached to the office of Coroner. Nob only so, but the Bill gets rid of what we consider is under the present system exceedingly undesirable, the appointment of medical men as coroners. When we consider that in many instances he has to sit in j’adg-

ment upon the professional conduct and mode of treatment it may be of a rival practitioner, it will at once be seen that a change in this direction cannot but be regarded as tending alike to give confidence to the public, and removing the official from all suspicion of bias either for or against the medical man interested. We fail to see any argument for the retention of the present mode of filling the office which will, when examined hold good. The Coroner does not in any way, or at least should not, exercise his medical knowledge either for or against; the evidence of experts is alone the ground upon which the jury come to their decision —one too, which is not at all influenced by the fact of the Coroner himself being a member of the medical profession. Therefore there is really nothing whatever to be gained by the retention of the present system, while on the other hand there are many and cogent reasons for its abolition. The public will be far more assured that justice is done if the enquiry be conducted by an official who will be totally disinterested, from his not being in any way open to the suspicion of .professional jealousy or rivalry, and one too who, from his training, is likely to look upon the evidence submitted from a judicial point of view. The alteration in the number of jurors is unimportant, as seven men will be quite as able to return a verdict in accordance with the evidence as twelve. It is also a matter of public convenience, as it reduces the number of those who are withdrawn for a time from the prosecution of their business. The proposition, in certain cases, to empower the Coroner to hold an inquiry without a jury, is, on the contrary, a very important one, and under some circumstances will, we think, be found to work advantageously. Indeed, we think that the system might be still further extended, by allowing the Coroner, in certain cases, to dispense with juries entirely. Cases have occurred in which suspicion has, without very good grounds, been cast upon innocent persons, who have had to undergo the annoyance of being brought publicly before a court of enquiry, without, when the facts are subjected to examination, any reason whatever. Under the plan proposed, the Coroner himself would be able to hold an enquiry, when, if the evidence adduced did not warrant any further steps being taken, this would be obviated. On the other hand, should it appear to him that the matter is one calling for the intervention of the law, the Crown Prosecutor, being informed thereof, could proceed in the ordinary manner, and a formal legal investigation take place. By this means the public interests would be carefully considered ; so that the really guilty would not escape, while the innocent who, from a mere cursory looking at the facts or a hastily prepared case such as now necessarily results under the present arrangement, has to submit to the pain of unnecessary publicity, would be shielded. Such a system as that we now propose is in force in Scotland. There the duty of conducting inquests is discharged by the Procurator Fiscal, a legal practitioner, who does so privately and without jury. Should he, on the facts adduced, be of opinion that the death was caused by unfair means, he procures a warrant for the arrest of the suspected person, who is then brought before tho Sheriff, and evidence taken in tho usual manner. The Coroner, under the new Bill, if the clause we suggest were added, would act in precisely the same manner, hence no failure of justice could possibly take place. In Victoria, the system of Police Magistrates holding the office of Coroner has been in force some time and works well, so that the plan proposed by the Government is not by any means without good precedents. The lasd point we need refer to is the abolition of the fees for holding inquests. This, we take, to be a very judicious enactment, as it will tend to prevent enquiries of this kind being held unless there is real reason to suspect that some foul play has taken place. Altogether, tho new Bill, with the addition we suggest, will, we think, be found to work well, and while doing away with many of the objectionable features of the present system, will still provide efficient machinery for the defection of crime, and tho fullest investigation of any circumstances which may bear a suspicious character.