OVERHAUL OF JURY SYSTEM DISCUSSED

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27962, 8 May 1956, Page 9

OVERHAUL OF JURY SYSTEM DISCUSSED

AUSTRALIAN LETTER ** —■

FN.Z.P.A. Australian Correspondent}

(Rec. 7 P m) SYDNEY. May 7. “If I am guilty, let me go before • jury, with a persuasive barrister. But. if I am not guilty, let me go before a Judge.” A legal official said this in support of a growing clamour by Sydney legal authorities for overhaul of the New South Wales jury lystem. Controversy on the jury system was renewed after a retired magistrate. (Mr J B. Brimstone) sMd he considered it ‘‘completely outmoded.” Mr brimstone, who was a chamber magistrate for 15 years, said he was convinced that the jury system “acted for the benefit of the legal profession and the accused who are guilty.” Mr R- Windeyer, well-known as a senior counsel and legal authority, said he favoured retention of jury trials for criminal cases, but not for civil cases. He said there were occasional mistakes under the jury system. but he had known judges to make mistakes too. Mr Windeyer said judges should replace juries on civil cases and those arising from third partv insurance claims after motor accidents. “There is no doubt that juries have been swayed by their emotions in assessing huge amounts for damages,” he said. “Pressure From Trades Hall” A leading barrister said that pressure from the Trades Hall was reaching into the Courts. Juries, usually comprised of trade unionists, were swarding extravagant damages in civil industrial actions brought by unions on behalf of members. Because of this, said the barrister, the Labour Government was unlikely to change the system to enable a judge to assess damages. Other legal authorities drew attention to examples of inconsistent verdicts by juries in accident insurance cases. In one case a girl was awarded £5OO. including £lOO medical expenses, for a broken pelvis. For similar injuries, other juries had awarded £ 1500. Recent verdicts for £30.000 and more, resulting from motor accident injuries indicated the need for some yardstick by which damages could be measured. Most legal men thought a judge—or a bench of three judges in more serious cases—was more likely to arrive at consistent verdicts than were jurors, whose -emotions could be swayed by persuasive lawyers.

An interesting sidelight on the jury system was provided last week when Mr Justice Richardson discharged a four-man jury in the Supreme Court because the wife of one of the jurors had spent the previous day in Court listening to the evidence in the case. Hd ordered that the case should go before another jury, and commented: “Human nature being what it is, I must assume that a juror, having his wife or close relative present, would discuss the case during the overnight adjournment. It is no exaggeration to say that the Court would have five jurors instead of four.” The “Sydney Morning Herald” said the decision has very odd implications for the future, and they will be

odder still if other judges accept the opinion that not only the wives, but close relatives of jurors should be barred from Court. “The first question that occurs is how close must the relative be? And if a close relative should be barred from the Court while a case is being heard, why not a close friend, who is just as likely to discuss the case, with the juror as a close relative.” the paper said. “Even if the ruling were restricted to wives, it would still pose some awkward questions Cannot a wife discuss a case on which her husband is a juror after reading a report of the case in the afternoon paper? Is it not really more practical as well as more prudent, to regard a man and wife as one person and their joint views as one opinion? In practice there is no way to stop a man discussing something with his wife except by separating them by force.” One further consideration has occurred to everyone: how easy it will be in future for a juryman to get out of a long and tedious case simply by introducing his wife into the Court on a carefully prearranged day. & # *

While Sydney wrangles, drive-in theatres are part of the local scene in other State capitals. Thousands of people attend the “drive-ins” in Melbourne and Adelaide every night. Melbourne has had five open-air theatres operating for more than a year. In Sydney, however, the procurement of a licence for a “drive-in” is a complicated and protracted business.

Two picture corporations have been battling in Sydney for licences for drive-ins. One or two “independent” licences have been granted. This week a leading Sydney bookmaker sold his drive-in theatre licence for £102,000. The buyer was one of the picture corporations. The lucky vendor reaped his harvest without any effort or expenditure other than was involved in the acquisition of the land and the succesful prosecution of a claim for a licence.

In Victoria and South Australia, where drive-ins are flourishing, people desiring to venture into the business simply have to comply with normal safety regulations.

An odd angle to the new night entertainment was the announcement by a Melbourne drive-in company that it had bought a number of old cars and would station them at the theatre. It is hoped to induce people to go to the theatre by bus, hire the cars for the duration of the show and then go home by bus.

A man once declared a hopeless cripple is now holding down an executive job that would tax most men's physical capacities. He is 32-year-old Robin Cornell, who fought with the Royal Australian Air Force in the Middle East. An unidentified disease paralysed Cornell from the waist down after an operation in 1943. Doctors told him he would be permanently crippled. Cornell, finding Australia had no adequate rehabilitation organisation, went to London where brilliant re-

habilitation work was being done. In less than five months he was “reconditioned for living.” Doctors restored what was left of his body to almost physical perfection.

Cornell is now the executive secretary of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital’s rehabilitation appeal. The appeal, for £lOO,OOO is to set up a medical rehabilitation centre for civilians in Sydney. A woman who broke her neck in 1938 and who was given six months to live, is among those helping the appeal. She is Miss Alison Yabsley, who was severely injured in a car accident. As well as breaking her neck, she severely damaged the motor nerves controlling her limbs.

She was completely paralysed from the waist down. After years of being fed by nurses with a spoon, she too went to England for treatment. She can now type, sew, knit and make artificial jewellery.

Day-dreaming cost a newly-married man a 10s fine in the Sydney Traffic Court. The Magistrate fined Barry Wilson for jay walking. The usual fine is £l. Wilson said he had been day-dreaming when he crossed a main city street. When tile Magistrate asked him what he had been day-dreaming about, Wilson replied: “It was my first day back from my honeymoon.”