TRIAL BY JURY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1234, 16 September 1911, Page 4

TRIAL BY JURY.

SHOULD A MAJORITY VERDICT BE ACCEPTED? (By Telegraph.—Special Correspondent.) Auckland, September 15. Auckland lawyers nro not agreed as to tlio advisableness of abolishing the rule requiring unanimity of juries in criminal casos. One solicitor, who was spoken to on Iho subject yesterday, said that whilst lie did not favour the Scottish system of "bare majority," ho thought that a threefourths verdict would be sufficient. "At present," ho said, "one juror, by sticking out for a verdict of acquittal or conviction against eleven other men, from pure obstinacy it may be, may prevent a verdict being arrived at. He may thus cause the country and the accused to bo put to tlio expense of a retrial, and even then thcro is no assurance of finality boing reached. I do not say that we should adopt the 'not proven' rule, but thoro seems to bo no valid reason why the verdict of a substantial majority should not bo sufficient: to meet the ende of justice." Another lawyer to whom tho question , was put shook his head. "No," ho said, "I do not think that wo should depart from our present system. I do not think it would bo safe to adopt tho rule of a majority verdict. If you cannot get twelve men to find an irccused person guilty it shows that there is a doubt, and, according to one of the greatest principles of British justice a conviction should not bo recorded."