JURY-REFORM

Evening Star, Issue 15174, 3 May 1913, Page 2

JURY-REFORM

[By Sir Harry Poland, K.C., Counsel for the British Treasury.] In a case tried before Judge Rented, K.G. (reported in ‘The Times’ of Februanr 17), after a hearing which lasted the whole of one day, the jury had to be discharged on the following day because ono of the jury had been taken ill and was unable further to attend the trial. Before the jurors left the box Judge Rentoul said he was sorry they had had to come there uselessly. Ho hoped that before long this oountiy would adopt the method which was in use in other countries—namely, to swear one or two .extra jurors, who sat in court and heard the case, not on the jury, but ready to take tne place of any juryman who fell ill It was exceedingly hard to have to begin that trial over again, as it had already lasted a day, but in some' instances jurymen had been taken ill in cases which had occupied many days. As lom ago as 1882 Mr T. W. Erie, one of the Masters of the Supreme Court, in his work, ‘ The Jury Laws and Then Amendment,’ dealt with this subject. At page 46 he stated that— In Germany the possibility of a juror becoming disabled at any moment from further service is not overlooked or disregarded. Supernumerary jurors have to attend (at, any rate in important cases) with and just as the sworn panel, ■but they occupy a separate box. They thus hear and see all that passes, and , in case of need are fully qualified to supplement the regular jury, there and then, with efficient recruits. In this co ™ t fy> however, where time is more valuable, and authority less imperious, people would not be at all likely to tolerate the conscription of more jurors than are likely to be actually required in the ordinary course of things. I quite agree with Mr Erie that it is not desirable to swear extra jurymen to supply the place of jurors who might be taken ill m the course of a trial. There Sfe practicable difficulties in the way of this being done, and there is a better wav I thank, of dealing with the difficulty! Mben a juror, through any cause, is unable to continue to act during a long trial the verdict of the remaining jurors should be sufficient, both in civil and criminal cases. Mr Erie, who made great efforts to get the jmry laws reformed, drew a Bill amending them. Clause 38 of that Bill is as follows

In the event of the death, illness, or .default of attendance of any juror or jurors during any trial, civil or criminal, the Judge presiding at such trial shall have power, except only in a trial for high treason, treason-felony, or murder, if he shall think fit, to direct that tho trial shall proceed with the reduced number of Jurors, provided that such numlier be not in any case .less than 10. In all such cases the verdict of the remaining jurors shall be a sufficient verdict. I think it will be sufficient, however, to j le should proceed provided that such number be not in any case less than 11, as it is very rare for two jnrems to be disabled in one case, and I would not except cases’ of treason, treason-t-alony, _or murder. There is no special virtue in the number of. 12. The unanimous verdict of 11 is surely sufficient. It was mdeed a mercy that the whole jury in the Tichborne case lasted out. , } civil cases the number of jurors might well be reduced to 10. When this matter was under discussion in the House of Commons so long ago as 1874, ‘The Times,’ in a leading article, on April 23. said upon this subject that “the balance oi opinion, and also, it would seem, of experience, is in favor of some such reduction; but there are decided opinions on the other side, and the question ought to be carefully considered,” Th® jnry Jaws require to be thoroughly overhauled and consolidated. A consolidating and amending Bill was introduced by the Government in 1873, and a further Bill by Mr Lopes in 1874. Has not the time conic for abolishing the jury of matrons? In 1847 Mary Ann Hunt” was convicted of murder at the Central Grindnal Court, and at the following sessions a I ? atrons . was empanelled to try whether the convict was “with child of a child,” and the matrons, after, searchar C d examining her, returned a verdict that she was not. She was consequently lett for execution; but the surgeon o f Newgate reported to the Home Secretary that she was quick with child, and he. with wisdom equal to that of Solomon, said that a few months would settle the question, and some time after her sentence had been respited she was delivered in Aewgate of a fine child (see Cox’s Criminal Case, yol, 2, p. 262). I was myself engaged m a case of murder, in which a woman after conviction stated that she was quick with child,” and a jure cf matrons was duly empanelled in order to decide the question. They were so puzzled over the matter that they asked the Judge to allow them to have the assistance of a surgeon, which was granted. They rightly decided that die was not quick with child. She was not, however executed, as she showed symptoms of insanity, and was in consequence sent to a criminal lunatic asylum. This was the case of Christina Edmunds, tried at the ISTg™ 1 Cnmlnai Court 011 Jan harv 15,