TRIAL BY JURY.

NZ Truth, Issue 63, 1 September 1906, Page 1

TRIAL BY JURY.

Among other legislation- proposed tiiis session is a little Amending Bill ■ introduced by the Minister for Justice ! which, if adopted, will revolutionise the administration of Justice m the ■, Supreme Court, m its. criminal juris- ! diction. The serious feature of this Amending Bill, yclept; "The Juries Act Amendment Bill," is that it provides for a three-fourths majority verNdict of a 'jury trybg a criminal issue, where that jury, after three hours'deliberation, is unable to arrive at an unanimous, decision. Briefly put, this means that the system' that prevails m civil, actions is to be applied where the life; or liberty of an individual is at. stake. The legislation, domestic and experimental, of New Zealand, daring- ; as it was thought and beneficial as it has proved, has'brought this colony ; ; into universal prominence and importance as offering precedents to other statesmen of the wdrld, assuring the utility and success of- similar legislation m their ' countries. That this measure proposed by Mr McGowau, if carried, will create adangerpus precedent none will deny ;. but it can, be confidently affirmed that such '&>• precedent is hardly likely to be followed m any -other country under the? British Crown,,: unless it makes for a y better and more pure administration,* of Justice, which, all things considered, can hardly b# improved upon. Howerer, the effect , of suchja law, onr the 1 world outsgpifeed Mot at present:] l» considered ; ; >ife ; possibilities at* horn« are mor^ tot^e point. Thati this amendiß#BUi -^ll meet with, deoppoeition from each branch'!

; «f the Legislature before - it 'receives. *,the imprimatur of Parliamehtj "Truth" has not the slightest doubt^ <that it will become one of the slaughtered innocents of the Session

■is the kindest fate it can he wished. *For this unprecedented attempt to

palter with one of the oldest 'birth-* 'rights of the British nation, viz., theright of any person, charged with ai criint, to be tried by a jury of hist

pwrs and' to be by that jury unanim-

,oml j adjudged guilty or not* v ejiilty no ■' doubt the Ward Go* '#rnment can give reasons. Those cannot be based on* 'tSpt grounds of urgency. There' is.i ,nji outcry against the present system

it trial-by-jury, a system, more per"feet, it is. true, than that. which pre T vailtd m the days of the Ancient^ Drwids ; a system the Normans did t not introduce to England; a system Hhe origin of which is lost m countlacs eons. Purely the reasons which can be urged for the practical upheaval of the holiest canon of British jurisprudence must be weighty, sound 4 * and all convincing. ' ■

One plea, worthy of consideration,'., to be offered for the furtherance of this extraordinary, yet by no means , new, proposal is that of expense. But surely if the expenditure entailed by, .the administration of Justice is unduly heavy, and m need of the re-: trenching Tmife, there are plenty of^ useless and costly forms of prooeedurts that can be abolished. It may also be urged that criminal juries, by j reason of_ their failure to agree, put ! '.the country and the accused to--. the I inconvenience and expense of a second •r possibly a third trial, and even ,then without reaching finality. It is seldom that juries do disagree m critminal cases;, the lack of unanimity amonp; jurors at a second or a third .trial is rare indeed, I n fact, the general unanimity of criminal juries m New Zealand is the soundest possible Armament that can be advanced against the demolition of the system. If a jury .doss disagree, if one, two.. •r. three men prefer, to regard the other elafen, ten or nine as the ir.ost obstinate men breathing, that lack of unaaimity only indicates that the Crown has failed to prove, to %c entire satisfaction of a jury* the guilt of the prisoner whose life jor liberty is invested m their hands. The juror ivhen sworn, to try a criminal issue is rxhorted to "well and truly try and true deliverance make between our Sovereign Lord the King and the prisoner at the bar whom you shall have m charge and a true verdict give according to the evidence.'' A juror on his oath is therefore hound to give a verdict conscientiously ; if he fails to do so he is a perjurer and a traitor. To prove a charge beyond reasonable tioul>t is the responsibility resting with the Crown ; if twelve men cannot be convinced, the charge for the nonce hails. It is optional, then, with the Crown whether there should he a pecond or eren a third trial ; but be-

fore any man or- woman can be convicted of any crime the jury must be unanimous. This Jury Act Amending Bill therefore aims a blow at one of the most cherished rights of every Briton. It proposes to relieve the Crown of a great responsibility; while it imperils the safety of the subject.. It w,ill not be necessary to convince the whole jury, but the major part of it. Majority rule is to prevail, where the lives and liberties of men and women hang m the balance. How, it may be asked; is, this system likely to . prove of advantage to an accused person ? To be' unanimously acquitted of a criminal charge is to have the innocence of an accused proclaimed throughout the land. A majority verdict may snatch a prisoner from the. felon's cell,' but it will not remove the stigma of guilt, or purify the pubdie mind of the suspicion that there has probably been a miscarriage of • Justice. By this proposed alteration ;.an accused person is to be deprived of the benefit of any element of doubt. If one or more jurors conscientiously ..entertain- a doubt of a prisoner's guilt' 'and from,, best motives decline to see ;eye to eye with their brethren, the" ■fact that the jury are unable to agree only the?. effect given to:- the Judge's : charge that the benefit of any- doubtmust be given the prisoner.

For -this proposal no precedent -can' ibe- found m any Anglo-Saxon community. That men should he adjudged:; guilty of crime on the majority ver-; diet of a jury is obnoxious to the ■ truest principles of British justice.,, The further argument, which seems ton be the chief, but which at its best is*' the weakest, is that criminal juries* are no different to juries trying a ! civil issue. Those who are familiar with the procedure m both branches^ ■will readily agree that momentous. as«< often are the issues of a civil case r , which a jury haa to decide, the res- J iponsibility of the jury trying . a criminal case, the issue of which is guilty ) or not guilty of a crime, is, as it j should be, enormous. The procedure 1 differs m many respects. What would be of vital importance to the juror rfcrying a criminal issue would, if that -\ issue was a oivil one, not be entertained one moment". The two cases are not analogous. The liberty of the-i individual cannot be compared to ■ matters of pounds, shillings and;* pence. As long as a Liberal Government bent its energies and farsighted" mentality on making new laws, or? overriding old ones, for the best in+< terests of a young and .enterprising- i people, it Wfas».on right track and' none more unfalteringly supported it-' than has "Truth." But this attempts to tinker with the most vital principle of legal proceedure is quite another matter, and it* will be the duty : of every member of the House to weigh the subject carefully before casting his vote. The question of party must not be considered m such an'issue. Let one and all of the' legislators look at the subject from the standpoint— as every reasonable man should do, however remote the possibilities—that he can never know when, he himself might stand before a jury charged with a crime of which, thoughcircumstantial evidence was strong against him, he was innocent ; and then let him weigh m his mind the value to him of the one or two votes of those clear-headed jurymen who refused to be carried off their feet, as it were, by a stream of apparently damnatory, circumstances and the adverse charge of the professional criminal catchet on the Bench: If this is done from the Publican's . and not the Pharisee's point of view, there needle little fear m the public mind as to the fate of this deadly dangerous little Bill. Its death will be as certain as its conception- was outrageous.