TRIAL BY JURY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 848, 17 December 1929, Page 9

TRIAL BY JURY

VERY FEW MISTAKES IN N.Z. SOLICITORS’ OPINIONS The Tasmanian proposal to abolish trial by jury in criminal cases in favour of trial by two judges, with the right of appeal, does not seem likely to meet with the approval of the New Zealand legal profession. “Now and again, when there is .. flagrant case »>f a man being acquitted b> % a sympathetic jury, the question of abolishing the system crops up. but I don't think this will evo.r come to pass in New Zealand.* said Mr. L. G. West. Mr. West, who is president of tic Auckland branch of the Law Soviet\. thought that the majority of members would favour the present system. Ho said that trial by jury was one of the outstanding and distinctive principles of the English system o judicial process. It had been adopted successfully in America, where even more intricate methods had to l*** adopted to ensure the selection of unbiassed juries. Mr. West also mentioned that when the Malolo was n Auckland recently, an American lawyer, who was on board, ami who had recently visited Japan, told him that in that country the numbers of trials by jury were increasing every year, and they were proving very satisfactory. Now and again there were miscarriages of justice, said Mr. West, but they were generally confined to eases where the law differed from public opinion, and was contrary to the generally accepted moral standpoint. It had been suggested that bookmaking cases be taken out of the hands of juries and heard before a Judge alone, but he thought this would b« fatal to the system of trial by jury, which was an attempt to keep the criminal code on a level with the prevalent moral standard of the community. Although the Tasmanian proposal provides for :\vo Judges, which was really a trial by a jury of experts, he would be very surprised if the proposal was accepted in that countr)'. MADE FEW MISTAKES “I think it can be said that the profession generally prefers the system of trial by jury.” said Mr. E. H. Northeroft. In some cases where the law of the country was a little bit ahead of public opinion juries might differ, but in the main he thought that juries made few mistakes and were to be trusted. He did not think there was mueh prospeet of the system being abolished in New Zealand. Another solicitor who was questioned this morning also unhesitatingly expressed his preference for the jury system. He said he also knew for a. fact that most of the Supreme Court Judges were in favour of the system, holding that in the general run of eases the system of trial by. jury worked out fairly.