FIVE-SIXTHS MAJORITY VERDICT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 255, 22 July 1920, Page 6

FIVE-SIXTHS MAJORITY VERDICT

PROPOSED FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS DEBATE IN THE COUNCIL The second reading of the Juries Act Amendment Bill was moved by the Hon. 1 J. MacGregor in the Upper House yesterday. The Bill provides that in criminal cases other than capital a verdict of five-sixths of tho jury may be accepted, and that the continuation of trials not involving capital charges may be ordered by the presiding Judge when, owing to the illness or death of a juryman or jurymen, the jury is reduced to not less than five-sixths of its original strength. . , Mr.' MacGregor reminded the Council that he had in previous sessions introduced a similar measure, He understood that the Government would now either take up his Bill or introduce a Bill of its own on similar lines. He quoted from tho pages of "Hansard" opinions which he had obtained from membew of the judiciary and had caused to be recorded last session.

The Hon. 0. Samuel opposed the Bill.' He believed ho could show conclusively that to pass the measure would I%'unwise, Nothing could be more subversive of social peace than the intrusion of a doubt about the due administration. of justice. The very fact that unanimity had go long been required by our law should cause the Council to hesitate over any proposal to make an alteration. The rules of unanimity applied in all parts of the British Empire except Scotland; and in Scotland the difference was found in company with another notable difference, viz., that a verdict of "not proven" was there admissible. Mr. Samuel quoted figures compiled by the Justice DepartIn the year ended Jane 30, 1917, ho said, there were 271 trials. In 249 eases unanimous verdicts were returned upon tho first trial—l 32 verdicts of guilty and 117 of not guilty. There wore thus only 22 cases in which juries had not agreed at the lirst trial. Some of those 22 casi>s went to a second; others to a third trial; and unanimous verdicts were returned in all but five cases. The Crown entered a nolle prosequi in each of the five cases left, undecided. "Could you have anything more satisfactory, or anything which tends more to account for tho confidence in the administration of justice whicli-docs happily exist in tho British Empire i l ' wa9 tho lion, gentleman's comment -upon tho figures. "In tho face ot those results, are we justified in'altering in any .material respect our law of trial by 11117?"

The Hon. H. L. Michel indicated his intention of moving in Committee an amendment substituting "eleventwclftW for the words "five-sixths." The Hon. J. Barr considered that the • Hon. Mr. Samuel had started from a wrong basis by assuming that tho present jury system was perfect. Tho Bill was an lionest endeavour to break down the "rule of' one," which was a bad feature of the present system. "About file weakest and the most conservative Teason one could advance," was tho speaker's description of Mr. Samuel's contention that because the "unanimous vcrdict w(is tho rule it should remain tho riilo; Mr. Barr said he would support the Bill.

Sir John Sinclair was nt one with Mr. Samuel in his Attitude towards the Bill. Ho could not see that sufficient reasons for a change had been disclosed. The exception provided for .capital eases betrayed the fear that tho proposed change might lead to the perpetration of injustice. i Sir Francis 801 l (Leader of the Council) explained that the exception referred to wis merely l Mr. MncGregor's concession to what was necessary in order to increase the chances Hiat the Bill would go through. He admitted the correctness of the mover's statement that the Government would in all probability either take up the Bill or Jntroduco a similar measure of its own. It was right that Parliament shculd attach importance to the opinions of Judges upon questions affecting extensively the administration of justice. Tho Chief Justice had in «i very recent letter expressed his approval' of a change from tho rule requiring iinnniJi'ity.. .The speaker could not pledge his Ministerial colleagues to support tho •BlTT'in Dm oTher House, but he would .himself support the Bill. Tho . second reading was carried on the voices.

"PAPER" OATS ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO BREAK MARKET. A question asking the protection of tho Government in a commercial matter was addressed to tho Prime Miaister in tho House of Representatives yesterday. Mr. J. R. Hamilton asked the Prime Minister to make it illegal for any person to sell '"paper" oats. He explained that the Auckland merchants were at present engaged in a campaign to break the oats market, and were offering to sell oatfe which they did not hold nt a price 25 per cent, 'below tho market. The object of tho plan was to let them out of forward sales which they had made. The effect of the scheme would be to demoralise the market, and to cause farmers to lose confidence in the industry. Mr. Massey: I ain sorry to learn that tho Auckland merchants aro trying to do anything improper. Mr. Hamilton: "They are doing it, anyway." Ho said that no sales wero ever allowed to take place nt tlio reduced prices. Tho offers to sell were made merely to demoralise the market. Mr. Massey asked what would Lappei in tlio event of any of these offers to sell being accepted, Mr. Hamilton said that the merchant concerned would immediately Kick out of his offer. Sometimes bogus sales from merchant to merchant, might bo arranged. Mr. Massey said that if the honourable member would supply him with particulars lie would be glad to look into the business and see what could be done. Mr. Hamilton: I shall bo pleased to do that. The Government linß already tnkon action to set up a Board of Science and Industries, and it is intended that legislation dealing with the subject will be placed ' before Parliament this session,