POLICE & JURY LISTS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2128, 21 April 1914, Page 5

POLICE & JURY LISTS

AUCKLAND CASE

THE-LISTS UNSATISFACTORY.

• (By Teleeraph.— Vtes6 Association.) Auckland, April 20. When Mr. ,C. C. Kettle, S.M., and Justices of the Peace met this morning to consider revision of the jury list, Mr. Mays, representing tho Crown Prosecutor, asked leave to appear for tho Police Department, as the conduct of tho polico' had been called into question.

The Magistrate said the police were not parties in the matter, but Mr. Mays could watch tho proceedings in a friendly way, and could make any suggestions, which the Bench would bo pleased to hear. Mr. Kettlo said that during the adjournment it had been found that two thousand names had been struck off the jury list, and the Court wanted to know why Sub-Inspector Johnston desired to make an explanation. Mr. Kettlo pointed out that thero was no charge against tho police, and such proceedings would bo irregular. Sub-Inspector Johnston asked for tho return of the rough jury lists, which had been handed over owing to a misunderstanding of the legal position. • Mr. Kettlo replied that lists in the- possession of the Court were the original lists, and the Court was going to revise them.

Tho Sub-Inspector insisted that the lists put in were not revised lists, but tli'6 Magistrate declined to' accede to the request, •,'''■'

Sub-Inspector Johnston subsequently bended to the Press for publication the following statement:—

! . Sub-Inspector's Statement. The list he had produced, said the sub-inspector, was the list required by law, and was the only liet that could 'now; bo considered. The warrant was addressed to himself, and lie alone was answerable for it; though the information was necessarily collected by a deputy, as had been done.for twenty years without challenge. Largely as a result of the present proceedings, distorted views of this matter had appeared in the Prese. These were founded on ignorance of the law, and were grossly unjust to the polico, and calculated to create alarm in the public mind as to fair and , lawful composition of the juryjist. Such an impression was cruelly false and unjust. The law required him to; placo on tho jury list.persons who complied with the qualifications of the Act. If he had wilfully placed oh the list an unqualified person, or wilfully, omitted a qualified person, lie; was liable , to proseoution arid heavy, penalties. If he had done either or both of these things he invited the Magistrate to institute proceedings against him. Ho submittexTthat the action of himself and his- subordinates in preparing .the jury list was in strict accordance with the law, and could iiot b'o challenged., If any person had been omitted wlio was entitled to appear, or rice- Versa, machinery was provided to rectify such errors.

"List Irregular and Unsatisfactory." The Court decided that, b'wirip; to the irregular, incomplete, and unsatisfactory manner in which the lists had been prepared, the Court was unable to revise tftem, within the time mentioned in the Act. ■ ' The Bench made a number of suggestions as to amendment if tho Act, inqluding the raising of the age of jurors from 21 to 25 years, and in regard to the methods of preparing the lists. - # The'effect of the Court's'/'docisioit',is that the old jury list remaine in ■force.