THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3173, 25 August 1917, Page 8

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

SIR JOSEPH WARD REPLIES RECENT CRITICISM ;' ir . v ., : 7 . : ; MFENCE OF THETAXES .FIRST'ITEM OP ESTIMATES ;•-«:-,;. — PASSED, '- '.Tlio'Legislative 'Council, met id 2.30 / p.ui.; ■.. -':./... ... .;■ ■."•;■';'JURIES"ACT AMENDMENT. ~The Hon." J. ;BARR,-resuming tbe debute on .'the-: Juries Act Amendment Bill, said that- the requirement of unanimity in-.-the decisions ;of juries seemed to him to be absolutely ridiculous. Scotland had long ago abandoned thisrequirement, perhaps troui-'a realisation of the fact that a- natiunal characteristic would make it .impossible for the'majority to convince thb minority. He did "not believe in the bare majority, since that arrangement ■ i might leave the decision to one man. He ' did not regard the Bill as the thin end of,the wedge for the abolition of the jury system. The lawyers of any nation, if tiiey had:theirowji way, would do away . with/juries. But the people would not tolerate the abolition of a system that vciis. regarded by them as a vei'v irapor- ■ tant buttress of their liberties. He would '. -vote for the Bill-without committing -himself to the three-fourhs majority. ,jTJio-..H0n.,.T. -MACGIBBON said that. to demand unanimity was often to de- , mand t,he. : impossible. . It should..not be within the power of one member of a jury- to .render, void the'decision of the other eleven jurymen.;' The present-sys-tem, tended to promote corruption, and lie, did not -belioTe that any exception could reasonably be taken to a threefourths majority verdict ' ' . People's'; Rights, The Hon." SIR WILLIAM HALLJU.N'ES said that he would support the Bill, but would propose, if.the measure reached the -Committee "stage, that a fiyceixths majority should be required to secure a conviction, and that unanimity - ot the jury should be demanded in capital cases. He regarded the maintenance of the jury system as highly important. There was a provision in the Crimes Act, and also in the. War Regulations, that a"hy person .who did anything with the intention, or the tendency, to "incite dis■'affection against the Government of $ew' •Zealand" was liable to punishment. The jury system was required to protect* the rights of individuals. - Hon. T. JfacGrcgor: "Government" does not mean the Ministry. Sir Francis Bell: You are misleading the Council. There are wide qualifications. '; Sir William Hall-Jones said there were men' in Parliament who had encroached upon the privileges of the peoplo hy de-priving-persons accused of sedition o"f the - right to trial by jury. - .Tlio-:H6nV,T..T. PAUL said that there was now. a new offence of "seditious tendency," the, interpretation depending upon the Magistrate-or Judge. He hoped there" would be an opportunity i-'to" discuss that point. He- would support the Bill, but he would be no party :,to any weakening of tho jury system. edly there, were peoplo in high, places in' New Zealand opposedto the jury system; some Judges were opposed to tho jury system. But ho wbuld'prcfer the verdict of twelve jurymen to that of one Judge on a question of fact. A jrreat deal was said of the mistakes of juries, hut not enough was beard of the mistakes of Judges and Magistrates. ..-, ' '(Inciting Disaffection." - SIR FRANCIS BELL said 'that Section 118 of tho Crimes Act, relating to 'the oll'ence of inciting.disaffection against tho Throne, -the Constitution, the Government, or the administration of justice, was subject to the qualification: That no' person should be deemed to have sedU tious intention only because he intended in good faith to show that' His Majesty •had been misled or mistaken in his measures, or to point out errors or defects in-the Government or Constitution, or- to incite--His Majesty's subjects to -attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting ths Constitution, tho Government, or the laws. Tho Hon. B. HARRIS opposed the Bill. Ho regarded the time as exceedingly inopportune for any interference with the jury system. Tho Hon. T. MACGRI3GOR, in reply, said, that he did not intond to press the •Bill during-tho present session. He realised that the country woulilhavo i» be educated to accept" the amendment of the jury system. He hoped eventually to see Junes replaced by a.bench of three .fudges. His proposal to legalise a threefourths majority system constituted ah important measure of reform. Ho did jipt'believo any of .the New Zealand Judges was opposed to trial by jury even in civil cases. The tendency of ' 'Judges, as a matter of fact, was to put thb-responsibility of decision on juries in ' order to avoid accepting it themselves. •Ho" would bo willing to accept a fiveBtxths majority, with unanimity in capital

" -''Htf'iSWfn&.ftiding. t(f.••thfr'-'BiU was. approvedV\l)jv'l3: .votes' toliV- •." " The\C6u.nfcil;rose,.at 5.5 ,p.m. . ~