Few Maoris Not Eligible For Service On Juries

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29985, 21 November 1962, Page 18

Few Maoris Not Eligible For Service On Juries

I from Ovr Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, November 30.

Maoris were being disqualified from jury service mainly because the police failed to appreciate their position when jury lists were being compiled, Parliament was told today. The Minister of Maori Affairs (Mr Hanan), moving the second reading of the Juries Amendment Bill providing for the service of Maoris on ordinary juries and the abolition of allMaori juries, said a ruling from the Crown Law Office on the definition of “Maori” in the Juries Act, 1908, showed the Maoris who were full-blooded and those who are more than half-caste and who lived with their tribes were those who could claim Maori juries where the offence was against another Maori under this definition.

There could be very few Maoris in this category, he said. Very few were, therefore, excluded from jury service.

Mr N. V. Douglas (Opposition. Auckland Central) asked whether the bill were political or legal. It had been suggested by Maoris in his electorate that this was a sounding board for the abolition of the four Maori seats in Parliament.

Mr Hanan replied later that the Government had no policy on this question and there was no indication from the Maori people of their desire.

Mr Hanan said he had made further inquiries into the Rau murder case in Auckland which had been heard by a Maori jury, and it had been found that Rau should not have been tried in this way after all. While Rau was a fullblooded Maori, his wife, the victim of the murder, was not. Of her eight great-grand-parents seven were fullblooded Maoris and the eighth was a European. "He should not have had a Maori jury,” said Mr Hanan. "The law has not been carried out, but the Crown need not take any further action in the matter. Rau’s counsel did not wish to take any action.

“The Solicitor-General has said that the circumstances of the Rau case highlight the fact that it is difficult to be certain that the strict requirements of the law can be observed.” There had been no thorough check in the case of the degree of Maori blood in members of the jury, said Mr Hanan.

Even in 1861, the judges of the Supreme Court, in a memorandum on the jury system, saw no need for allMaori juries, said Mr Hanan. “They saw the need for mixed juries.

“A century of experience should justify the conclusions we have reached in this bill,” he said. “It is difficult to maintain that the standards of morality and conduct between Maoris and other sections of the community are sufficiently different to require different treatment” he said. “It is not

in accordance with our concept of one people.” Only one dissonant note had been struck against the bill in the representations to the Maori Affairs Committee, said Mr Hanan.

“A deputation from the Gisborne Law Society argued that the bill was premature, but only half of the members attended the meeting which carried a resolution on those lines. The New Zealand Law Society, when asked, indicated that it did not wish to appear. No other law societies have protested against the bin.”

Though the Gisborne deputation argued that Maoris were not ready for jury service, he would show that, in fact, very few Maoris were disqualified, said Mr Hanan. “What rules them out is not the law as it exists, but the fact that they have not been included in the jury lists and have the impression that persons of Maori blood are not eligible. No doubt the Minister of Police will have the jury lists compiled in accordance with the law.”

Mr Douglas held that the opinion of the Maori Council on this bill was divided and argued that the all-Maori jury was a privilege which should be removed only with

“Under the system of challenge, the Maori stands very little chance of serving on a jury,” he said. Why did not the Minister remove other distinctions for special juries? He should abolish the Crown's unlimited right of challenge. Divergent Cultures

“The two cultures are still divergent and legislation will not integrate them,” said Mr Douglas. “A pakeha jury can. not fully understand the pride the Maori can have in his customs and creeds.” Mr P. B. Allen (Government, Bay of Plenty) said the Maori Council had been unanimous that this bill should proceed. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash) said there should be provision in the bill that at least one Maori should serve on a jury when a Maori had been indicted. There were factors in the Maori way of life which an all-Europe’an jury could not be expected to know or fully understand, but they should be able to take these factors into account when reaching a verdict