MOTOR CASES

Evening Post, Issue 82, 6 April 1936, Page 10

MOTOR CASES

SYSTEM OF TRIAL

JUDGE AND ASSESSORS?

COMING DISCUSSION

The programme for the Dominion legal conference at Dunedin, opening on April 15, includes a paper by Dr. A. L. Haslam, of Christchurch, on the establishment of a court (consisting of a Judge and assessors) for the hearing of running-down cases, with discussion by the conference as a whole to follow. It is an interesting and important subject," and one to which in the past the Chief . Justice (Sir Michael Myers) has drawn some attention. Indeed, the title of the paper embodies the suggestion made by his Honour at a quarterly sitting of the Supreme Court in' Christchurch in August, 1932.

His Honour, when he made his suggestion, was addressing the . Grand Jury- He drew the attention of the Grand Jury to the fact that cases had occurred where one jury (on a criminal charge) had declared by its verdict that the accused was not guilty of negligence, while a second jury (in a civil action) declared that he was. Both verdicts, said his Honour, could not be right; it was • indisputable that there was an injustice somewhere. If ' the driver of the motor-vehicle was not negligent, and was therefore not liable, why should some third party be required to pay damages on his behalf? If, on the other hand, he was negligent, why should he escape entirely responsibility for the consequences of his negligence? As matters stood, he might and often did escape criminal responsibility, and was immune as well from personal pecuniary loss. SUGGESTED REMEDY. It was difficult, he knew, to find the remedy, said his Honour, but he believed it- could be found. He proceeded: "I can assure you that, speaking for myself, I do not wish to have added to my judicial responsibilities that of trying alone civil actions in which damages are claimed against persons who have the benefit of a ■statutory indemnity. Even if a Judge, trained to weigh evidence and to apply legal principles to it, though he is not infallible, is less likely to err than a jury, I do not suggest that these actions—l refer, of course, to civil actions only—should be tried before a Judge alone. But may there not be a via media? For example, might not a Judge and two assessors ad hoc—one appointed by each party—be a more satisfactory tribunal? Might not such a change lead to more just results in both civil and criminal cases? Might it not result in the jury in criminal cases feeling perhaps a greater sense of responsibility?" The suggestion by his Honour was taken up by the "New Zealand Law Journal," which dealt with it editorially and also published a symposium of the opinions of prominent members of the legal profession. The views expressed by the representatives of the profession differed considerably and there was by no means a general acceptance of his Honour's suggestion. Some wrote in support of it, and others contended that the appointment of assessors would not overcome the difficulty, as, human nature being what it is each assessor would vote.for his own side and the matter would be left. for the Judge to decide. There were advocates of the system of trial by Judge alone just as there were others who wrote in' opposition to such a procedure. Among other suggestions advanced were that the law as to contributory negligence in collisions on land ought to be simplified by the adoption of the Admiralty rules^and also' that the evils to which the Cniel Justice had referred did not result from a defect in the jury system, but from the state of the law. THE PREMIUM-PAYING PUBLIC. While it agreed, that the appointment of such a tribunal as had been suggested would overcome certain difficulties, the "New Zealand Law Journal," in its editorial columns, stated that the wisdom of the suggested change to assessors appointed by the parties to the action was questionable. We fear" the journal stated, "that knowledge that the indemnifying insurance company has its own specialised appointee as a member of the Court might possibly shake the confidence of a premium-paying motoring public as to that Court's impartiality, a condition that must be avoided at all costs. . . . Accordingly, we beg leave to take the suggestion of the learned Chief Justice a step further, and ask: why not appoint in each judicial district two men of recognised standing and of unimpeachable probity to sit with the Judge in actions of the class under consideration: men who are independent of any particular interest involved in the issues before their special Court? Enough has been given to show how divergent the views of the legal profession were on the subject when it was introduced by the Chief Justice in 1932. The opinions of some may have altered since then, but in any event Dr. Haslam's paper at Dunedm should provoke a very interesting discussion.