THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3172, 24 August 1917, Page 7

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

TAXATION AND THE COST OF LIVING ,OUR REINFORCEMENTS •-The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. yesterday, •JURIES ACT AMENDMENT. ' .The Hon. W. EARNSHAW resumed the debate on the June 3 Act Amendment Bill. He said that there would bo great danger in departing from the requirements of unanimity of the jury in criminal oases. Ho had seen something ot tho passions and -prejudices, fagotry and.superstition, of liTs fellowmen. One of;his early memories was of the Jienian movement in Manchester, ■ and he recollected that the lawyer, his own employer,' who defended th'S'-ffien accused of murder on "that occasion had •been practically ostracised by the legal . profession. Recently the people & New Zealand had seen a symptom of the existence of the same spirit. Tho AttorneyGeneral had publicly attacked a learned member of the-legal profession for nnd?™«Pß. the defence of - men .oharged with sedition. It would Be perilous in the face of happenings of that Kind to allow a verdict of three-fourths of the membars of a' jury to count as the ver- .;; diet of the whole, . . . ' Australia's "Tragedy." ■' Mr. • Earnshaw saTcTnebeared that examples of .the weakness of the Jury system might bB found in Australia to- '■■??''■ ."*' ' 9 almost an open secret, in ■ these^times of censorship, that a.tragedy is being enacted on the Australian 6ide," : said Mr. Earnshaw; "Let us take an. illustration from, what may bo happening there.. We will assume that life has been taken,.and' that men aro going . to. be tried.for seamon or- uprising. There will not be a cifizen in Australia Dut who will be inflamed to the very limit on these questions. No man will _.go into the jury box free of prejudice and untrammelled in his opinions. His -..:. bias, perhaps his unconscious bias, 'wJS sway him. , If he is a sympathiser with the 1.W.W., he will fight for the acquit- , -,-tal of the accused persons, even if their -lands are stained with blood a dozen times over. The man who stands for the State will be'equally determined :that the prisoners shall pay the penalty of. the law/' It s.eemed: to. him that the jury system broke down in times.of intense public feeling. : His:own idea Was that' the persent jury system would require to be modified.' The selection, at random of twelve citizens did not necessarily provide a competent - tribunal. It would be better to have only experi-. enced and capable" men on juries. But in any. case the recognition 'of' threefourth verdicts would not remedy the existing troubles.'' The future probably ■would bring; some drastic change' ,in Court procedure.in tho direction of the selection of men qualified- to sift, evi- .. denes for jury work. He did not be- - lieve in unpaid service in matters'of this kind. - Men who .served the State or , the community in any capacity should be paid. ' : The Hon. R. MOORE said that argument adduced from Australia was in fa- . vour of the Bill. If there were conditions of insurrection and bloodshed to be faced in Australia' it would be safer to allow the three-fourths' verdict. Any . jury selected in the '\ Commonwealth would'bo likely to contain at least one man who would refuse to convict sedi-tion-mongers, and the .result would bo the. escape of the' criminals. It might . § prove absolutely-impossible to get a conviction against an accused person in such times as were being -experienced in Australia. Mr. Moore supported the Bill and advocated the . abolition of Grand . Juries. The Hon. % MORGAN said that-he. .. -.-. would be prepared to vote for the second reading, but would like an amendment ir/serted in-the Bill, providing' that •unanimity of the jury should be required in capital cases. The Hon. G. CARSON said that six out of the eight Judges might be regarded, in ! the light of their expressed opinions, as supporting the second read- . ing of. the Bill. They wore in''favour of some modification of the demand for ■unanimity of the jury. The iaw requiring unanimity produced miscarriages of justice. Capital punishment'was another factor working in the same direction.. A Minor Bill. SIR FRANCIS BELL said that he re;arded the subject of the Bill as of very minor importance. The occasional failures of juries to reach agreement did not affect materially tho course of justice. The Bill had ■ considerable weight of judicial authority behind it, and he i. was in favour of the Bill in general, though not in detail. He could not support anything .short of unanimity in capital cases. He and his colleagues in the Ministry felt, however, that the time was not opportune for sending such a'. Bill .to the House of Representatives, and he would have'to ask the mover ;and the Council not to.carry the Bill.beyond the second reading, during the present session. -He hoped, that when the session . of: 1918 camo : the factors/that at. present

limited the business of Parliament would be removed. Grand Juries. He did not agree with the condemnation of grand juries. It was an undoubted, fact that grand juries had played a great part.in the preservation of British liberties in tho past, and 1,0 was satisfied, from his own experience that they still served a usoful purpose. It was a sound principle ot British justice that a jury of citizens should havo the right to say, ;>fter hearing the indictment, that a person should not bo put to trial. Tho system offered a measure of protection to tho citizen that the' nation could not afford yet to dispense with. Sir Francis . Bell said that ho regarded tho use of juries;' in civil cases as a eauso_ of inoflicioncy and annoyance. The disagreement of juries in civil cases was not important, 6ince another trial would bo ordered if tho Judge considered it necessary in the interests of justice. If tho disagreement arosu from a reasonable doubt, tho prisoner would get the benefit. Tho change proposed would operate to tho disadvantage of tho prisoner, and ho would prefer a five-si \ths majority to >i three-fourths one. Tie thought a smnll disadvantage to the prisoner would bo ' justified by tho security given against a disagreement being produced by ono corrupt individual. Tho acceptance of ■a majority verdict should be at the discretion of tho Judge. The debate was adjourned en the motion of tho Hon. .T. Bans and the Council rose at 1.23 p.m.