TRIAL BY JURY

Evening Star, Issue 18281, 22 May 1923, Page 8

TRIAL BY JURY

ITS ABOLITION ADVOCATED. PREVALENCE OF PERJURY. Mr Thomas O’Halloran, on behalf of the South Australian Law Society, gave evidence before the Law Reform Commission recently. ■Ho said that on the question of Inal by jury the Law Society advocated the abolition of trial by jury in civil cases, including matrimonial oaueos, but excluding all actions in which a criminal offence was involved, such as libel or an insurance claim in which arson was charged. Very often perverse verdicts were given in criminal cases The Chairman: Supposing a certain verdict is contrary to tho evidence, would you give the judge power to order a retrial? Witness: No; that would alter tho principle that a man is tried once and for all by his peers. Mr Butterfield: Would it not be an advantage to have an appeal both ways, so that if there is fresh evidence it can be brought out by the Crown P Witness: Very often when evidence is wanted it is forthcoming.

Mr Roidy: That is an extraordinary elate raent.

Mr Butterworth; Very extraordinary. Witness; Surely you cannot doubt it. The Chairman: It can often bo obtained? Witness: Yes. It is a bad thing to say, but nobody who has been connected with the administration of law can shut his eyes to the fact that an immense amount of perjury goes on, and there is a good deal of false evidence. Also it has been stated ■by competent men that perjury is an ordinary everyday occurrence. It is awful to think it is so, but there is no use shutting your eyes to it. Speaking of a very recent criminal case, the witness said that while _ the ease was on he was informed, on testimony that he accepted, that some of tho jurors had been discussing a sentence of two year, imposed on a young man whom they bad recommended to mercy, and that they had made up their minds not to “pot” another prisoner that session, Mr Reidy; Is that not an argument for the abolition of juries? Witness; I think there are strong arguments for that. Mr Tassie: What about the juror’s oath?

Witness: If it can bo proved that a juror has broken his oath ho can be dealt with.

Witness said he favored a trial by three judges, with a unanimous verdict. Mr Butterfield: Did (he jury let every prisoner off after that? Witness: I think th n re was only one other case, and the jury disagreed. It is occasionally known (bat there is a man on a jury who will not convict at all. Browbeating of witnesses was done to impress the ' jury. Special juries were farcical tilings.