Majority jury verdict mav be considered

Press, 1 March 1984, Page 20

Majority jury verdict mav be considered

PA Wellington The Minister of Justice, Mr McLay, has said evening that the number of disagreements among jurors in criminal trials was causing concern to the judiciary and the time may come when majority verdicts would have to be considered. The cost of further trials imposed an unfair and unnecessary burden on all involved, Mr McLay said in an address to Birkenhead Kiwanis in Auckland. Mr McLay said a jury verdict must be unanimous in a criminal case, and if one juror disagreed then there must be a new trial. “In recent months there has been an observable increase in the number of such disagreements,” he said. It was a cause of concern to judges, court administrators, laywers, and to himself. In 1967 Britain changed its criminal law to allow for

majority verdicts — with no more than two disagreeing, said Mr McLay. Although it was opposed by some at the time, it had worked remarkably well and even the opponents now acknowledged the value of the change. “Certainly there is no suggestion that innocent people are being convicted or that the guilty are going free as a result of 10:2 verdicts. “I know that there are many lawyers, both prosecution and defence, who would favour such a change,” he said. “If the present trend of disagreements was to continue, and certainly if it was to increase, or if there was any serious suggestion of interference with jurors by way of bribery or intimidation, then clearly the time will have to come when we must seriously consider making a similar change in New Zealand,” Mr McLay said. “If introduced, the jury

would (as in civil cases) probably first have to try to reach unanimous agreement, and then, after a defined period of time, be allowed to deliver a majority verdict,” he said. The chairman of the Law Society’s courts and tribunals committee, Mr lan McKay, said last evening that any change to unanimous jury verdicts should be approached with caution. While retrials meant additional inconvenience and expense, the unanimity requirement was one of the safeguards against the possibility of an innocent person being convicted. The British law change had been prompted by the number of juries being tampered with. He was not aware of any evidence indicating this was happening in New Zealand. A careful study would have to be made of the factors leading to an increase in disagreements, he said.