THE JURY SYSTEM

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 66, 15 September 1921, Page 7

THE JURY SYSTEM

WHERE LIES THE FAULT?

MANY EXEMPTIONS FROM JURY SERVICE

THE POSITION OF THE CIVIL SERVANT. . .

What ails the jury system? That all is not satisfactory to the country—not merely to the State as represented by the prosecution—may clearly be inferred from the pointed remarks of .members, of the .Judiciary, from returns, showing the results of jury trials, and from the comment of the-man in the street, who is every man, and whose general opinion, therefore, is representative of the. general feeling upon the question. .'■" *

The eccentricities of juries are not new, for the "periods of reluctance to convict,", as one official put it to a Post reporter, date back many years prior to the war and post-war year*. That very well-worn explanation of to-day's many complications, "social and industrial unrest,". then cannot be offered as a complete explanation of the app"aTent failure _of the system in such cases as those in which Judges have drawn special attention by caustic remarks to the foreman and to the Court. 'Cutting indeed was the comment made by Mr. Justice Stringer at Auckland when a ' jury brought-in a verdict of not guilty in the case of a man who had confessed a theft :"I suppose we may assume that you have read his confession," and hardly less so was that of Mr. Justice Reed during the last session of the Wellington Court : "The only charitable view I can take is that the Jury has not understood the case. . . Perhaps it would be wise to make application for a special jury in such cases in future." Even more pointed were earlier remarks. Judge Ward, of the District Court, many years ago declined to consider criminal caees in one centre, in view of the unexpected findings of the juries there, and suggested that the actions should be transferred to Greymouth. Juries at that centre have not always been what they should be apparently, for when, in the early war years, a Grand Jury brought in a no bill in respect of .t! charge of embezzlement, the now Act-ing-Chief Justice, Mr, Justice Sim, expressed astonishment, and said that he had certainly expected something better. from a Grand Jury, for such a finding in relation to the case which had been presented tended to bring the whole jury system into disrepute. His Honour suggested that the crown should consider the question of the transference of such cases in future to another centre, which course was, as a matter of fact, adopted in a recent case, which was transferred to Christchurch. On one occasion the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, ordered that a change of venue Should be made from Auckland to Hamilton, that "the fair name of Auckland should not he smirched." Many similar, remarks might be cited, for the dissatisfaction is as-keen as it is, longstanding. Where lies the fault t. Is the jury panel inadequately representative? Do jurors realise the responsibilities that are imposed ttpon them by their oaths and their duty to.the State? Has the iime come when an amendment-of the 'jury system must be decided upon'? QUALIFICATIONS AND MANY EXEMPTIONS. Every man is liable to be called for service upon the jury who is (a) between the ages of 21 and .60, (b) resident in New Zealand (not being a Maori), (c) of good fame and character, and it follows that persons without such, qualifications may not serve. Further,' undischarged bankrupts are disqualified from service. Though- but a small section of the community is thus disqualified from service, a very large section is exempted, a.nd it is in regard to the very, many exemptions that those who criticise the system in practice have much, to say. In the Wellington Supreme Court district there is a population of nearly 100,000, yet in the jury, list, inclnding special jurors, who are, aiter atl, but picked common jurors, there are but 5215 names. The specified exemptions are : Members of both House of Parliament, Judges, Magistrates, visiting Justices, clergymen, barristers and solicitors, teachers, school inspectors, doctors, dentists, chemists, -Civil servants, post and telegraph employees, railway employees, gaolers, constables, coroners, pilots, masters and members of crews of ship,sr Customs officers, volunteer firebrigadesmen, naval and military persons of full pay, officers, non-commissioned officers, and rank and file of the permanent / forces, the territorials and officers of the senior cadets. Such is a heavy list, but in practice there are other exemptions. For inBtance, a number of the staff of the Wellington City Corporation have been enrolled as" special constables, and when \ the jury list was last revised, in April, 74 members of the staff of the Harbour j i Board were struck off the list, on the ground that they had been enrolled as special constables in the service of the board. Strong opposition to the application was made by Inspector M'llvaney, of the police force, but the Bench ruled that the erasures should be made. FEW FARMERS ON JURIES. By the Juries Act of 1880, all person* residing 'within a radius of twenty miles of the District Court were liable for a call to serve upon the jury benches, but, by an amending Act of 1898, the jury district was reduced to that area within a ten miles radius. That limitation of area, in the opinion of many officials,' resulted in the excluding of many a hardheaded and essentially sensible man from jury service, and laid the groundwork for a complaint made at a recent Dominion meeting of farmers as to the working of the jury system, and the suggestion that criminal or civil cases relating solely to farming practices should be considered by a jury of practical farmers, since they alone had the practical knowledge necessary for the proper understanding of such cases. The suggestion was dropped by the meeting, but it is one which finds favour with many officials wnoss interest in fanning is nil, but whose, wish to see the jury system as good as it can be made is keen indeed. Provision is made for the enlarging of the jury district to the original twenty mile- radius by Orcler-in-Council, in cases where sufficient jurymen do not reside within the ten mile radius, but there is apjitrentiv no recorded case of such an application having been made. DEAD LETTER AND DOUBTFUL EXEMPTIONS.1 Happily, from the point of viqw of those who have to deal with jury lists, the exemptions of members of the Defence Forces arc not nearly so wide now as they were last year, consequent upon the narrowing of the Territorial age from 18 to 21 years in place of 18 to 25 years. The exemption of Territorials set out in tho Juries Act is therefore a duud letter, for the reason that no Territorials, with the exception of officers, are of jury age. Still that adds no name to the jury panel. JusL what is tl'ie position in regard to the exemption of members of the Reserve, including members

of th"c Territorial Reserve, i,e, r practically all men from the age of 21 to 25 years, is not at all clear. The Defence Act of 1909 provided that members of the Reserve were exempt' from jury service, but the particular section was replaced by section 67 of the Defence Amendment Act of 1912, which gets out that members, of the Reterve are' not exempted. The Juries Act, however, ■contains no such amendment, and since the jury panel is compiled in pursuance of a warrant under the Juries Act and not under the Defence Act, members of the Reserve have not been called upon (to serve as jurymen; Obviously, a serious oversight has occurred in that respect, and the panel is ,so much the poorer. '' \- -"WHY SHOULD WE BE 1 EXEMPTED?" The matter of the exemptions of members of the Civil Service was talked over with several responsible officers in Government positions, and the answers | to queries- were in the main identical in effect and are reducible at once to a question and a plain expression of opinion: "Why should we be exempted?" It is probable that this series of exemptions dates back very many years when Civil servants numbered but a few .hundreds in the whole Dominion, each man with a distinct ■ task and each1 in effect an administrative. officer, but at the present' time there is scarcely a branch. of social activity in which the Government has not a direct administrative interest. The Civil servants of the Dominion, the Railway employees, ■ and the officers of the Post and Telegraph Department number thousands, and ■ male officers are exempted from jury service. "Certainly my position is a responsible one," said one officer, "but have I not a responsibility to the country in jury service? It is not a pleasant service, it is duty, and it is as much a duty to me and to -other Government servants as it is to the comparatively "few persons who are not'exempted....ln the old days a servant of the Government was considered to have,an interest in the Crown, and was therefore not an unbiased person, but present conditions are not those of fifty years ago. Counsel still have the right of challenge, and if a Civil servant is considered an improper person for the purposes of a particular case, he may be ordered to stand down. As it is one person may be required to do jury duty two or three times in a year, but were . the list enlarged the probability of double service would be much reduced.. In my j opinion, the sole exemption, should be | that of prior service, excepting, of I course, in particular cases of individuals and 'of certain classes. No one, for in-, stance, would suggest that constables should be called to serve upon juries, nor that officers of the Justice Department should be called to sit on the jury benches, not that they are not good citizens, but because they may be considered to have more than an impartial I interest in the proceedings.""The.list has been cut, and cut, and cut," said another officer. "There are eminently sensible -Civil servants, fairminded "railway and Post Office men, thoroughly sound school teachers, and surely the jury system would be improved by their inclusion among the jurors upon call. Certainly such men are working in the direct service.; and j interest of the country, Taut to call one Civil servant, one railway employee, one man from the Post Office, and one school teacher to serve as jurymen would not mean that the work of their Departments would be paralysed. The jury system is too deeply rooted in social foundations to be easily replaced, therefore it must be imp-roved, and improvement will come when the best twelve men available take their seats." "I DOUBT IF WE ARE EXEMPT." "1 doubt very much, if we are strictly exempt," said one Civil servant, "for but very few us hold office under appointment by the Governor-General, which is generally considered to be the. striotly legal light to exemption. The average clerk simply holds office under appointment by the Commissioners, and there are thousands of such clerks in the Dominion. The question cannot be decided in an off-hand but it is a very important one." LAYING A FOUNDATION. A school teaoher who,was approached was of the opinion that members of that profession were probably rightly exempted in the interests oFihe work at large, though, he added, he was as a rule a/ble to get away with a. football or cricket team. "One thing we.certainly can do is to pay more attention to the jury system in our teaching. The subject occupies a very small place in the work of most schools, but were it given- a more worthy place the child would be taught to respect the system, and a foundation would be laid for the practice of the future. I believe. that a- great deal might te done in the schools." ' ' •■