Truth A MAJORITY VERDICT.

NZ Truth, Issue 64, 8 September 1906, Page 4

Truth

A MAJORITY VERDICT.

Published Every Saturday Morning at Luke's Lane (off mannersstreet), Wellington, N.Z. Subscription (m advance), 135.. per, annum.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1906,

What is generally considered as bad taste and apt to create public prejudice against a Judge is any reflection cast from the Bench on a jury, which may have had the temerity to assert* its own independence and to have conscientiously given a verdict opposed to the almost expressed wish of the wearer>of the ermine on the Bench. The latest affront from an overbearing Bench to an apparently well-meaning jury, or a majority of that jury, comes from Palmerston N., where, last Tuesday evening, the Grand Jury empannelled to enquire as to the question of a true bill or otherwise m the case of John Jarvis Gillies, charged with being the perpetrator of the explosion at Nathan's factory at .Bunny tliorpe, ' some time ago, by a majority found "no bill" against the accused man. His Honor, the Chief Justice, after having previously informed the jury that a majority verdict would be accepted, said he would have to accept their decision, but added that if the evidence submitted to the Grand Jury was the same as that tendered m the Lower Court, then there tfad been a great failure of justice. Though such a remark, falling even from the lips of ,»Sir Robert Stout, is such that would justify "Truth" m taking His Honor to task, it can be made to serve a far more useful purpose.

Parliament just at present has before it an Amending Bill of the Jury Act, which provides for , a tnreefourths majority verdict m criminal trials, where a jury after three hours retirement cannot agree. As was pointed out by "Truth" last week such an Act will practically revolutionise the administration of criminal justice m this colony,, and will be liable for many grave miscarriages of justice if adopted. Majority verdicts, even of. • a Supreme Court Bench, are always sought to be avoided. Unanimity m every instance is earnestly desired. If majority verdicts of a Supreme Court Bench are deemed so unsatisfactory by even the Judges themselves, how much more dangerous must that of a common criminal jury he, where the liberty or even the life of the prisoner at the bar is concerned ? If so high a judicial officer of the Supreme dourt, as Sir Robert Stout, ventures the assertion that the majority verdict of a Grand Jury which finds no true bill against an accused person is tantamount to a miscarriage of justice, how dangerous an expedient it wbuld be to decide grave criminal issues on a majority verdict of an ordinary jury. Sir Robert Stout's utterance at Palmerston N. must receive the earnest consideration of every legislator ere by his "aye" lie consents to such ah unprecedented measure as that proposed T>y the Minister of Justice. If a Grand Jury's majority yerdict is capable of bearing such a construction as that placed on it by the Chief Justice, what are the public likely to think when a majority of common juries . m criminal cases convict or acquit a prisoner ? Is not the very fact that dissentients to that,, verdict exist, sufficient reason to suggest a failure of justice ?

Sir Robert Stout has, from 'the Bench, on more than one occasion expressed the conviction, after a criminal jury has disagreed, tnat the Jury Act should be so amended as to admit of a majority verdict. Whether it is upon the representations of the Chief Justice that the Ward Government is acting as sponsor to the Jury Act Amending Bill cannot be said ; hut it looks very much like it. If the majority verdict of the Grand Jury at Palmerston N. 'bore the aspect of a failure of justice, can Sir ftobert give any assurance that if the .Amending Bill becomes Law, he will not be called upon to express a similar sentiment on the majority verdict of the common jury. It is to be feared that no such assurance can be honestly given. The majority verdict of a Grand Jury is always unsatisfactory: majority verdicts from a- I ' common criNpiinal jury would be something damnable. Therefore it behoves the . Ward Government to be careful. In pushing such a matter forward, it is riding for a fall. Sir Robert Stout's Palmerston N. • utterance is timely, and legislators must weigh very carefully the consequences of passing such jl bill.