Jury verdicts

Press, 7 March 1984, Page 12

Jury verdicts

Sir,—As a law student I view with concern recent proposals to alter our legal system to allow 10-2 majority jury verdicts instead of the present unanimous verdict. Our present system offers the security of knowing that we have every possible safeguard against wrongful conviction. Majority voting increases the chance of wrongful conviction and will lower public confidence in our legal system. Cost cutting by a reduction in the number of retrials is the major reason given to justify a change. While applauding cost cutting in most Government departments, penny-pinching in matters of justice is false economy.—Yours, etc., R. P. RITCHIE. March 1, 1984.

Sir,—Recently the Minister of Justice, Mr McLay, hinted at a change in the law to allow juries to return 10-2 majority verdicts instead of the unanimous agreement now required. While in the short term this may reduce “hung” juries and expensive retrials, in the long term it could have a bad effect on our justice system. Without the knowledge that they are assured a fair trial and due process of law with a verdict beyond all reasonable doubt, people lose [faith in government and law in | general. Anarchy takes over with the inevitable authoritarian backlash, justified by the need to restore order. Any attempt to speed up justice should be tackled by improved organisation, rather than by removing one of the system’s fundamental safeguards. While weakening the jury system may save time and money its long term cost in human terms will far outweigh any immediate benefits.—Yours, etc., T. R. LOUDON. March 2, 1984.