CHIEF JUSTICE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 24 June 1924, Page 5

CHIEF JUSTICE.

SIR ROBERT STOUT’S RECORD. COMMENTS ON THE JURY SYSTEM. The record of twenty-five years on the Bench as Chief Justice of New Zealand, which Sir Robert Stout completed on Sunday, places His Honor at the head of the list of legal, luminaries who have occupied this important position. | Some interesting matters wire, discussed by the Chief Justice ill an interview in Auckland. Sir Robert said that the Supreme Court of put New Zealand in the forefront, of all British possessions for simplicity* and effectiveness of Court procedure. The whole matter of costs and procedure had thus changed following the adaption of the recommendations of the commission which sat in 1881, which included Judges, the then AttorneyGeneral, the Solicitor-General, and others, including Sir Robert Stout. Sir Robert added that the adoption of Stevens’s criminal code had also been a great help, and he recalled the fact that he had charge of the Bill when it went through the Lower House. The Chief Justice expressed the opinion that the people of New Zealand were better behaved than they used to be. There was certainly an improveiment, which, was reffscted in the diminution of the serious crimes that were formerly prevalent. It was true, said His Honor, that there had been an outbreak of burglaries and theft, but he thought that crime was relatively less than previously. The war, like other wars, was responsible for a mental effect upon the people, and a temporary outbreak of crime was not unexpected, but he thought the wave was passing now. The debated question of unanimous verdicts being '•required in criminal cases before a conviction could be obtained was discussed by Sir Robert, •who declared that the first- great reform that should lie dealt with in the trial of criminals was that unanimity of the jury should not be insisted upon. The present position, he said, was ridiculous. Jt had to be remembered that in Scotland, where a jury consisted of 15, a bare majority was sufficient, even whei;e the charge was one of murder; nor was unanimity required in France or Germany of in some of the States in America. It was an English theory that there must lie unanimity, but in His Honor’s opinion it generally ended in justice being deefated. There bad been eases tried two or three times, where, as to the guilt of accused there could have been no reasonable doubt on the part of any reasonable persons. Sir Robert did not suggest, as had been hinted elsewhere, that jurors could be “got at” in New Zealand, but jurors were fallible people, and in His Honor’s opinion unanimity was not necessary. In the Dominion we had already abandoned the rule which had been in operation in England, for centuries of unanimity m civil cases; a majority verdict of 9 against 3 was now, accepted, ;tnd he thought- that even seven against 5 was sufficient both in civil and in criminal cases. He pointed out that there was power to order a new trial if the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that was a safeguard. In answer to a query as to the status of the New Zealand Bar, Sir Robert expressed regret that it was not compulsory for all barristers to qualify by examination. He thought any man worth his salt could easily qualify, and the present method of becoming a. barrister —by virttie of the fact that a man had practised as- a solicitor for live years—had a tendency to lower the. profession. The am alga mat ion of solicitors and barristers. which did not exist in the English or Scottish Courts, was a development which was the result of local circumstances, and he did not .think it was detrimental either to the public or to the; legal profession. There were always certain lawyers who specialised in various, branches of law.