TRIAL BY JURY

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 48, 25 August 1917, Page 3

TRIAL BY JURY

AMENDING BILL BEFORE THE

COUNCIL

The Juries Act Amendment Bill passed its second reading in the Legislative Council yesterday. The debate was continued and lasted all the afternoon, the Hon. John Barr's remarks being followed by those of the Hon. T. MacGibbon, who stated that he thought the Council could safely support the Bill brought forward by the Hon. Mr. MacGregor and let it, at all events, pass its second reading. He believed that a three-quarters majority was a fair one, and that the three who failed to agree either held an unfair view or had come under malign influence. The Hon. Sir IV. Hall-Jones stated that he intended to vote for the Bill, but he did not want the idea to go abroad th&t he was in favour of all of its provisions. He favoured the five-sixths majority, and was opposed to any attempt to abolish trial by jury. He emphasised the fact that a nun who was guilty of seditious utteraivce was liable not to be brought before a jury but before a Magistrate. The Hon. Mr. Samuel, ht> took it, had contended that it meant the abolition of the jury system, but to his mind the Bill was intended to maintain it.

The Hon. J. T. Paul said that if he thought the Bill was an attack on the jury system he would vote against it. On its merits, h<nvever, lie intended to vote for the Bill, because he thought it would tend- to support the jury system. A lot was heard about the unfairness of juries, but not about that of the Magistrate or the Judge. The jury system was so much a part of our justice system that it was impossible, fortunately impossible, to undermine it. On this account he intended to vote for the Bill.

The Hon. Major Harris expressed the view that the present was not an opportune time to introduce such a Bill. He had approached the Hon. Sir Francis Bell to see whether the Government had anythißs; to do with the Bill, and had been informed that it had not. When two parties formed a Government nothing should be done that would pinprick the people.

In replying, the Hon. Mr. MacGregor stated, as he said he had previously done, that he did not expect to see the Bill passed this session. Certain objections and prejudices had to be overcome, and he realised that a. year or two would have to elft.pse before the peonle conld be educated in this direction. Tli.it was why he hnd introduced the Bill this session. , He explained that his object was not to attack trial by iury in criminal cases, but to strengthen it. Ac he had explained before, however, he was opposed to trial by jury in civil cases, b"t favoured.trial by three Judees. He did not wi»h to make a three-fourths majority absolutely essential, but would be satisfied with a maioritv of five-sixthc.

A division was called for and the second reading was carried by 13 votes to 2. the "noes" beine tbf H«n. O. Samuel and the Hon. Majnt Fan-is. The Cornmittep stacre was set down for Wednpsday. Ths Council ndionrned shortly after 5 o'clock until Tuesday.