The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1929 TRIAL BY JURY.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 December 1929, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1929 TRIAL BY JURY.

IriE Legislative Council in Tasmania has, as a message published recently, stated, passed a Bill providing for the abolition of trial by jury in criminal eases, the substitution of two judges for the jury, and the creation of a Court of Criminal Appeal. Agitation for reform of the jury system is nothing new, but a proposal for the abolition of it is another matter. The ground upon which the change is advocated is that acquittals have in some eases been so flagrant that the authorities have been discouraged in their efforts to bring offenders to book. An inability on the part of the authorities to secure convictions is advanced, therefore, as a ground for the abolition of a feature of criminal court procedure io which an inimen.se wealth ol tradition clings. The contention that trial by jury is so unsatisfactory that it could lie done away with, comments the Otago Times, does not weigh very heavily against the test of experience and against the laid tliat the system lias survived for eeni Hides as a cherished institution in British communities. 'Trial by jury has been prized and is still prized as one of the great safeguards of the liberties of I lie subject, and has been reiognised to lie the best, method of trial in criminal eases of importance. As a commission which sat in England some years ago observed, the system would not have become an integral part of

British .justice were it not realised that- some reliance could be placed in the fairness of the decisions obtained. The fame of British justice could not be what it is were the system of trial by jury unworthy of retention. The system lias been frequently under review, but a better lias, yet to- be discovered. It is preferable that a guilty person should, on trial, sometimes escape punishment than that an innocent person should be wrongfully convicted. Against the latter possibility popular opinion, at all events, no doubt regards the requirements of a jury as a valuable safeguard. The case for the preservation of that requirement is certainly arguable, but proposal for the abolition of trial by jury as a system implies an admission on the part of the community in which it is made that the jury lists are defective and in need o. c purging, or else reflects upon the community itself as corrupt and liable to be influenced in favour of criminals. The experience of Tasmania may have been unfortunate, but the proposal that the State should lead tile way in the abolition of trial by jury is more likely to be regarded as of a retrograde than of a progressive character. There has nut been any public demand for such a course of action m New Zealand. Although juries may have erred at times there has not been any flagrant miscarriage of justice. Juries invariably give value to their oath, and if tliat were not so there would lie an'outcry. The principle of trial by jury is now so long'established ami its purposes so well fulfilled, that it seems difficult' to realise in any British community the sense of fair play should be so dulled as to bring the system into‘disrepute. The situation in Tasmania must be very excep tional when it is deemed'necessary to traverse a system which lias hitherto stood the test' over so many years.