The Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1937. THE JURY SYSTEM.

Evening Star, Issue 22575, 17 February 1937, Page 10

The Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1937. THE JURY SYSTEM.

Public morality has reason to he shocked at the disclosures made in a Supreme Court case at Wellington, in which a woman was tried on seven charges of unlawfully, using an instrument to procure a miscarriage, and for the fourth time a jury failed to agree. One trial was held at Napier and three at Wellington. When the jury announced their disagreement after a retirement of four hours at the third trial, the foreman informed the court that it was nob a question of evidence, but there were two men on the jury who had made up their minds not to convict. This led the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers to observe that the position was very unsatisfactory. It was “ very unfortunate that, because of the action of one or two men here and there, the whole jury system is brought into question.” His Honour laid down the obvious principle that “ if there is any gentleman who is called upon to serve on a jury and who makes up his mind that, no matter what the evidence is, he will not convict, he should say so at first, because he should never be on a jury.” The position was so unsatisfactory to the Crown that, by a departure from the usual practice, a fourth trial was ordered, and the jury has once more disagreed after a four hours’ retirement. In addressing the prisoner after the disagreement had been announced the Chief Justice referred to evidence, “ undisputed and indisputable,” the natural conclusion from which was that a nefarious and criminal, and for someone highly profitable business, must have been going on in her house for eighteen months or more. He added that the jury had apparently found some difficulty and had not-been able to argue upon the question, presumably, whether the prisoner was the actual person who committed these offences, though receipts for a large number of sums, apparently connected with them and aggregating over £2,000, were shown by her books. The prisoner was discharged, with a warning from the judge to keep clear in future of such dangerous evidence, lest she should be “ less fortunate ” on another occasion, and no more can be said on this particular case. Whatever reason three juries may have had for disagreement where this woman was concerned, it is a wellknown fact that there is a percentage of jurymen and potential jurymen, who, for a sentiment of their own, are impervious to evidence calling naturally for convictions in cases of this kind. To that extent the jury system is impaired, and the Chief Justice had reason to refer to aspects of the matter, “ worthy of the serious attention of those who guide the destiny of this young country.” We are not convinced, however, that the weakness would be wisely met by an alteration of the law that would make a majority verdict of the jury sufficient for conviction in this type or in more types of eases. The jury system has its weaknesses because it is human, but it provides the greatest surety that is possible against injustice being done to innocent persons, and that is more important than that a guilty one should occasionally escape through its operation. With majority verdicts there would be doubts, and the Chief Justice of Great Britain has said properly: ‘‘ There is no such thing as the ‘ benefit of the doubt.’ If a jury has any doubt a person is entitled to be acquitted.” It might he practicable in certain cases to require of jurymen a declaration that they were not in conflict with the particular law involved before they were admitted to that function, as jurymen in some American States are required to say that they have no convictions against capital punishment. Short of that, the only remedy for individual perversities of view that do not help the jury system lies in education of the public.