A JURY’S TASKS.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 May 1922, Page 5

A JURY’S TASKS.

DUTY TO THE COMMUNITY. law against bookmakers. JUDGE REED’S OBSERVATIONS. In the course of his summing up in a case of alleged bookmaking which was before the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, Mr. Justice Reed made reference to the attitude which, it had been said, juries were taking up in regard to convicting bookmakers. His Honor prefaced his remarks by saying he would make some general observations on the law upon matters which might be considered not actually relevant to the case before the Court, but which, he thought, he should endeavor to impress on the jury “There is a consideiable conflict of opinion as to whether bookmakers should be permitted or not to carry on their business in the Dominion,” said His Honor. “There is no question about that. The Legislature has enacted a law which makes this business illegal. Undoubtedly many people think that law is a mistake, but that has nothing whatever -to do with us, gentkmen. Our duty is clear. We have to administer the law as we find it. Now, the administration of criminal law in British communities is an example to the world. Nowhere does a person charged with an offence get a fairer run than he gets in a British community, and I may say this, that nowhere have juries, as a rule, acted more conscientiously when convinced of the guilt of an accused person. JUSTICE IN AMERICA. “In America they have framed their administration on our criminal law—on the British system—but there have crept into the administration of the American law things which the best Americans view with sorrow and alarm.” His Honor went on to refer to the “third degree”—a practice which would not be tolerated in a British community—and said the system had probably grown up from quite a small beginning. This was one side of the question. Then the other side was that in America they had juries refusing to convict in certain classes of cases. What was called the unwritten law was successfully invoked before jury after jury. In France, cases of the kind Xvere even more prevalent, and then in the Southern States of America, in cases involving trouble between black men and white, the European juries invariably found for the whitfe men. This state had gradually growA in America until, as he had said, some of the best people viewed it with serious alarm. Once juries began to violate their oaths by being actuated by anything but the evidence that was before them, they opened the door to the maladministration of justice, and that brought the law into contempt. And it was not the wealthy man that suffered if the law was wrongly administered. It was the poor man. It had been said, in connection with America —though he was not prepared to accept it as correct —that if a man had enough money he could dodge the law all the time. It was perfectly clear, however, that, provided a man had the money in that country, he could string the thing on indefinitely. Now, this was not the case, he was glad to say, in British countries. The law was administered fairly and without discrimination for one class more than another. Why? Because juries had done their duty. THE UNWRITTEN LAW. With regard to the question of the unwritten law, His Honor remarked that he had had a long experience of the courts of New Zealand, and he could not recall an instance of the unwritten law being successfully invoked. Juries had done their duty, and while they may have sympathised with a woman they had brought in a verdict according to the evidence, trusting to the judge exercising reasonable discretion and tempering justice with mercy. He had mentioned this class ,£>f case because there were communities where juries had violated their oaths. The present case was not a moral offence—it was not an unnatural offence; but it was a breach of the law, though it was not in the same category as other criminal cases.* However, he desired to say that if juries in cases such as the present took it upon themselves to violate their oaths and in the face of the clearest evidence refuse to convict, then it was the thin edge of the wedge which would open thq door eventually to all sorts of maladministration in criminal law. “Giving sympathetic verdicts against the evidence brings the whole Jaw into contempt,’ said His Honor. “Now T have been prompted to make these remarks not with any idea of special reference to yourselves, but because it lias been said that in most cases of this sort in New Zealanu juries won’t convict, and that they will dismiss a case or find an accused person not guilty, even though they have the clearest evidence of guilt before them. I cannot think that the considerations I have put before you have been considered in those cases. * My experience of juries in the main is that they honestly try to do their duty to their country by assisting in the proper administration of justice, and by returning verdicts upon the evidence. The judge, of course, does not always agree with the verdict that a jury brings in, but that doesn’t matter. JUDGE OR JURY? “There is plenty of room in many cases for honest differences of opinion of the inference to be drawn from the evidence, and I venture to say that the opinion of a jury which has honestly considered the matter is of more value than that of a judge. So judges do not resent the verdict of a jury which can be seen to be the honest views of that jury. “Of course if, in the face of the clearest evidence, a jury finds against it, the administration of justice is brought into contempt and the harm done to the community far transcends any offence that has been committed by the person who is’ charged with the offence. There can be no doubt about that. I have been induced to make these observations from the fact that it has been openly stated that juries are prone to find verdicts of not guilty in cases of this nature, irrespective of what the evidence may be. I feel satisfied, if that has .been the case, then it has been because they have not really considered what their duties are. They sometimes think they are there to say whether a man should be punished or not. That is not the case: they have to find from the evidence whether upon their conscience they >«lieve the person guilty or not guilty-”