JURIES BILL.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18151, 14 August 1924, Page 10

JURIES BILL.

HON. J. MACGREGOR'3 MEASURE. THROWN OUT BY THE HOUSE, (ABSIDGED TEBSS ASSOCIATION ESTORT.) WELLINGTON, August 13.

In the House of Representatives toI night the Hon'. W. Downie Stewart moved the second reading of the Juries Act Amendment Bill, which was introduced into the Legislative Council by the Hon. John MacGregor, and passed bv that Chamber. The Minister said he was introducing the Bill in his eapacitv as a private member, and the Bill was not a Government measure. He'explained that the Bill consisted of three clauses, the second of which did awav with unanimity on the part of juries and provided that a five-sixths majority could be accepted in criminal cases, but not in capital cases. The third clause provided that a trial might, proceed notwithstanding that a jury had been reduced in number owing to death or illness. In presenting these proposals to the House, the Minister quoted the opinions of well-known judges who favoured the change, and generally followed the line of argument adopted by the mover in the Legislative Council. He asked the House to pass tho second reading.- He would endeavour to introduce into the Bill clauses which would equalise the right of the Crown and the defence to challenge jurors and to enable women to sit on juries. Mr Wilford said he took exactly the opposite view of the matter to that taken by Judges who sat on the Bench, and he believed his view was that held by most of the leading barristers in the Dominion. The present method of challenge was most unfair, but that was no reason why a Bill such as this should be parsed. Unanimity was the only safeguard. He was proud of our jury system: He believed our jurymen were not bribed, but were honest men. He had never known an innocent person convicted, and that was the crux of the whole position. Even %v3th unanimity juries mighi make mistakes, as in the case of Adobh Beck, but no eminent | authority in Britain would depart from ' the principle of unanimity. This Bill originated in fact because men had been acquitted of charges under the Gaming Act, which only went to prove that we could not legislate ahead of public opinion. Prisoners had a sufficient handicap against the Crown as matters stocd, and it would be unfair to deprive them of this one chance of a unanimous jury.

Mr D. G. Sullivan, as a layman, opposed the Bill, which was an attack on the jury system. Mr VA I>. Lysnar said the major! ty verdict was accepted in civil cases, but there the personal liberty of the subject was not at stake, which made all the difference. He would oppose the Bill. The Hon. J. A. Hanan said the opposition to the Bill was due to a conservatism which regarded the jury system as beyond improvement. He would support the Bill. Mr H. E. Holland opposed the Bill, lie strongly attacked the unlimited right cf challenge enjoyed by the Crown, contending that by that means the Crown, had the right to pack juries, which led to injustice. Mr E. A. Wright said the Bill did not attack the jury system. There would be no danger to the jury system, and no danger to a prisoner on trial if the Bill were passed. •Mr Isitt, who favoured the Bill, reminded the House that the change cut both ways. While a prisoner might not get a jury to acquit him unanimously, he might be acquitted by a five-sixths majority, and so saved great anxiety and the expense of another trial. .■■.-■ ••■•.:

The-Hon* •G. .J"* Parr supported the Bill.- .

After further debate the second reading was negatived by 33 votes to 29; . The House roso at 11.20 p.m.