Guests Of The State

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 973, 16 May 1930, Page 8

Guests Of The State

“TWELVE GOOD MEN AND TRUE!” THE jury of 12 good men and true is an ancient institution, and still today plays an all-important part in law. But with the times have come many changes and. while the jury of yesterday oft-times found drudgery and hardship in performing its duty, allowed to obtain neither food nor fire until its verdict was given, the juror of today loses hut few of the comfortable things of life, and as a guest of the New Zealand Government is extremely well treated.

Tlie jury system is one of outstanding importance in law and justice, yet few seem to know how it arose, though, it appears to have had its origin in customs introduced into England by the Normans. But the privileges of the juror have been extended, for we find in the past that not oniy could he and his fellow's not be discharged until they had given their verdict, but in the meantime they could not obtain food or fire. This was apparently the common law until about 90 years ago, while in the famous case of the “Seven Bishops” the jurors, under these restrictions, v'ere out all night considering the verdict.

In one particular case early in the 18th century the oath that was administered to the officer w ho took care of the jury was:—“Lay your hand upon the book. You shall well and truly keep everyone sworn of this inquest together in some private room, without meat, drink, candle or lodging. You shall not suffer any person Vhatsoever to speak to them, neither shall you yourself speak to them. So help me God.”

PUNISHMENT OF JURORS Then it may be found that at one time jurors were severely punished if they brought in a verdict of which tile Crown did not approve. Needless to say this occurred only in cases where the verdict went against the Crown. Jn one noted case the jury brought in a verdict against the Crown with the result that three of the jury were fined £2,000 a piece and five of them 1,000 marks, sufficient to send the ordinary juror of today bankrupt. The other four in the case made an apology for their verdict. In such cases as these the jury was tried by another jury of 24 for giving a false verdict. Today, however, no judge or any section of the Supreme Power can prosecute any juror for the verdict given and, of course, punishment is out of the question. And the jurors are indeed few today, who will not admit that being a guest of the Government is by no means a drastic ordeal from the social point of view at least, although of course, men with family and business obligations mav not always view it in the light of a treat.

In the present Auckland murder trial, members of the jury are undoubtedly faring very well, even though their pay of 12s a day would’ not be regarded by many of them as a princely salary. Their lodgings are at . one ° £ Auckland’s good hotels, where they share practically the same treatment as the tourist or traveller. They are cared for by two

members of the police force, who are also sworn in and whose duty it is to prevent them from holding communication with anyone on the subject of the trial. This is always the procedure with a murder trial, but in other cases when no direction is given by the court the jury is permitted to separate.

Evenings are by no means dull. The registrar sees to that. It must have been some surprise to the jurors last Monday, the day they were empanelled and found they could not go to their homes for the night, to be informed at the evening meal that seats had been reserved for them at the wrestling bout at the Town Hall. They all accepted the invitation, as they did on a later evening when they were entertained at a theatre. On both occasions they sat together accompanied by their uniformed friends. Just at present it is mooted that arrangements are also in hand for a launch and fishing trip on the harbour. Jurors have no trouble in obtaining changes of clothing or any other personal requirements from their homes. Members of the force do this for them. It is perhaps strange, but it/ds seldom that a juror has to send out an “5.0.5.” to his home for this reason, for when liable to be chosen for the jury of a big case he usually comes prepared.

Should any member of the jury become ill before the retirement to consider the verdict, or in the opinion of the court become incapable of performing his duty, the court may either discharge the jury and direct a new jury to be empanelled or postpone the trial. It is also possible in such a case, with the consent of the court, the Crown Prosecutor and the accused, to proceed with the remaining jurors and take their verdict, which shall have the same effect as the verdict of the whole number.

Every man is liable and qualified to serve as a juror who is between the ages of 21 and 60, who is a resident of New Zealand and one of good character. This rule, however, is subject to many exceptions, and those who are not qualified are unnaturalised British subjects, anyone convicted of certain crimes, those of bad fame or repute, and undischarged bankrupts. Those exempted from the jury service are M.P.’s, clergymen, solicitors, schoolmasters, doctors, dentists, pilots, shipmasters, naval and military persons, all persons appointed by the Post-master-General under the Post and Telegraph Act, certain railway officials and employees, while customs officers and fire brigade members may be excused on the production of a certificate.