JURY SQUARING

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 2, 2 July 1929, Page 8

JURY SQUARING

PLAN TO MEET IT

(From "The Post's" Representative) SYDNEY, 20th June. Of the amendments of the Victoriaacriminal code, foreshadowed in the recent policy speech of the Premier of that State, and now being prepared for Parliamentary sanction, the one dealing with majority verdicts in all but capital eases is a law reform which is regarded as long overdue there. The old jury system involving a unanimous verdict has long been jealously guarded and idealised, but the mentally alert evil-doer seems to have given rise to a new problem, and a new set of circumstances calling for attention. Commenting on the decision, the Mel-T bourne "Herald" said that jury squar/ ing and intimidation were not unknown in Melbourne, and when it is poss'bla by bribes and threats to corrupt only j one juryman in twelve in order to secure a retrial, and, perhaps, eventual acquittal, the path of the jury squarer and tho intimidator is made easy. That the Crown Law authorities have recognised this is evident in the fact that they have abandoned the publication of the occupations and addresses °; the jiry panels before the trial. But the latter precaution is not always effectivj, for there still exists means by which prisoners and their associates may secure knowledge of the personnel of the juries. It is evident that the Government ia bringing forward the proposal for majority verdicts, is quite aware of the modern dangers attending the system of trial by jury with unanimous verdicts. Modern and astute criminals must be met and fought by the law with equally modern and astute measures for the suppression of crime. Tho protection of society demands nothing less. It is pointed out that other parts of the Empire have already recognised the necessity. In Natal, it is said, a system of majority verdicts has been founa satisfactory, ana nearer home, South Australia has adopted a somewhat similar system. The South Australian Act of 1927 provides that, in all but capital cases, if twelve jurymen cannot agree after four hours' deliberation, the verdict of ten will be accepted. In capital cases, snould disagreement continue after four hours' deliberation, the verdict of tea jurymen returning a radiet of manslaughter will be accepted.