TWELVE GOOD MEN AND TRUE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 224, 22 September 1925, Page 8

TWELVE GOOD MEN AND TRUE.

TRIAL BY JURY. A CHERISHED RIGHT. CITIZENS JUDGE CITIZENS.

(By MAGNUS).

Life being an uncertain game, in which we know not when we may be face, to face with some seemingly improbable circumstance, it is quite on the cards that you and I may have to stand one day in a Supreme Court dock, indicted on a serious charge. That is why the jury system is of vital importance.

Our present jury system evolved itself from the less scientific methods of hundreds of years ago, when there was practiced "trial by orde-al' —when they made poor wretches accused often of trilling offences, plunge their hands into boiling water, or walk amid red hot plough-shears, the verdict depending on whether or not the victim escaped injury. The origin of the jury as we know it today, is probably to be found, according to authorities, in the sworn inquest of neighbours, introduced into England by tbe Norman kings and at lirst employed for the ascertainment and discovery ot royal rights and property, but gradually extended to other inquiries as a valuable method of getting the truth, ln any case, it has come down through the ages ns a cherished heritage of Englishmen, that citizens, accused of offences against the law, shall have tbe right of trial by representatives of the society of which they are part.

To-day, the minions of tlie law cannot drag a man before a single, all-powerful arbiter and say "we accuse this person of shooting his mother-in-law" (or of some more serious crime). The man, innocent untill he is proved to be guilty, must stand before twelve of his fellowcitizens, in the choosing of whom he may take part, if ho so desires. Thus citizens are tried by citizens. Men have the fate of other men placed in their hands. Thy jury is the judge, and yet differs from the Judge, in this great respect, that it stands "between" the powers and the prisoner. Isotc the scrupulous fairness 6i the procedure. What greater sense of justice could England have? Judges' Last Act. Controversy is at present ranging round the action of the Judges, who, availing themselves of powers conferred upon them, have deprived litigants of the right of trial by jury in certain civil actions. Barristers are raising their voices in protest. They question the authority of-the judges to deprive the people of the right of trial by the people even in civil actions, which are apt to be regarded as unimportant by persons who read only reports of criminal proceedings. Can the judges take away the rights of the citizens and. at the same time, increase their own powers? Is not the prevention of such a procedure the very essence of the jury system? These are questions to be ' decided quickly. What action will the legislature take?" "It is to trial by jury more than ever by representation (as it exists to-day), that the people owe the share they have in the government of the country," said Lord John Russell. "It is to trial by jury also that the Government mainly owes the attachment of the people to the laws; a consideration which ought to make our legislators very cautious how they take away this mode of trial, by new trifling and vexatious enactments." Base of British Liberty. And can we forget the stirring speech made in the House in August, of 1017 by the Hon. Mr. Oliver Samuel', replying to the Hon. Mr. McGregor in the Juries Act Amendment Bill. "The Palladium was the sacred temple of the goddess Pallas, on the preservation of which Troy depended; so trial by jury is to the British nation, for oil it 'British liberty depends. And Ido honestly believe that in every blow that we strike at trial by jury, we may be weakening the effect of efforts which may be necessary in future days, to resist oppression. 'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,' and I much fear that efforts will have to be made in future- days to resist the powers of an autocracy.* I believe that in the days to come, there will arise conditions in which the liberties of the people of Xew Zealand, as well as of other lands, will be seriously -threatened."

So it behoves the people to guard jealously their rights, which mean so much to them. It was pointed out in an interview published in the "Star," a few days ago that tbe levelling and equitable influence of the jury is the safeguard against such dangers as biased sole-arbiters. It is the common jury's influence that is vitaDy important in matters that affect both the people and the person, and, when that is fully realised, one understands what the jury system really means—what advantages it has, and what its existence means to the Empire as a whole. It incorporates fair-play, and fair-play is. to Englishmen, the ver_7 essence of justice. "Instinct of Civilisation." Referring, in conclusion, to criminal cases, one cannot do better than make use of G. K. Chesterton's "The Twelve Men." It is a terrible business, be says, to mark a man out for the vengeance, of men. But it is a thing to which a man can grow accustomed. Legal officials get used to it. Therefore the instinct of Christian civilisation has most wisely declared that into their judgments there shall, upon every occasion, be infused fresh blood ' and fresh thoughts from the streets.

"Our civilisation has decided, and very justly decided," he. says, "that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. It wishes for light upon that awful matter, it asks men who know no more law than I know, hut who can feel the things that I felt in a jury box. When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing around. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity."