COURT PROCEDURE

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 291, 7 November 1929, Page 7

COURT PROCEDURE

NEW ZEALAND AND AMERICA. VISITING SHERIFF’S VIEWS. “I think that those who come before your Courts come nearer to getting justico than do those who are charged in our own,” said Mr John Bigham, sheriff of Bell County, Texas, after studying New Zealand Court procedure at the Supreme Court quarterly criminal sessions at Auckland this week. Mr Bigham is visiting Auckland to execute a warrant of arrest against John Grey, land agent, of Rolensville, who has been arrested under the name of A. B. Crouch on a charge of forgery in Texas. Mr Bigham said that since his arrival in Auckland he had been interested in the way in which criminal cases had been handled By the Courts. The procedure observed in New Zealand, modelled as it was on that of England, was different in many respects from that of the United States. He had been particularly impressed with the way in which business had been conducted in the Supreme Court, and in many respects tne procedure had proved superior to that with which he was familiar under American law. There was an air of quiet efficiency about the Court which commanded respect. The whole atmosphere of the courtroom was. dignified, and in spite of the fact that trials were carefully conducted and evidence examined with meticulous attention to the prisoner in the dock, cases were disposed of in remarkably quick time.

LESS TIME THAN IN AMERICA. To one versed in Criminal Court procedure in America the conduct of the Auckland Supreme Court, typical of a British judicial institution, possessed a peculiar interest. There was no apparent hurry, no desire to decide cases in order to facilitate the business of the session. About 30 cases had been set down for hearing at the present session, and with a minimum of pressure these would be dealt with in about a fortnight. In an American District Court, which corresponded with the New Zealand Supreme Court, a similar number of cases would occupy much more time. _ . Formalities connected witih criminal cases in America were undoubtedly greater than those required to conduct a trial in New Zealand. It was interesting to observe that # all classes of offenoes were subject to similar formalities in New Zealand. A murder trial was conducted no differently from the trial of a man charged with a comparatively trivial crime. The machinery of the law was standardised, a fact which tended to render both prosecution and defence more convenient. In addition, trials were not delayed, and the cases passed through the Court in well-regulated order. This system had decided alvantages. Persons waiting trial were sent from the lower Court knowing that,they were to take their place on the list. There was no delay in dealing with a criminal and no long wait for those who, as innocent men in the eyes of the law, had yet to be proved guilty. _ < In spite of the air of solidarity which the atmosphere of the Court bespoke, the actual procedure was far from cumbersome. Whereas in America days or even weeks might be required to complete a trial ; a similar case might be disposed of m so many hours in New Zealand.

SELECTING AMERICAN JURIES. The jury system in the two countries was very different. In America it might take a week or more to select a jury for' a murder trial. As many as 300 men might be summoned to Court. From these the district attorney had to try to select 12 jurors, while all the time his selection was open to question’ by counsel for the defence. Each prospective juror was placed on the witness-stand and questioned at great length. If he expressed qualms about agreeing to a death sentence he was excused. If he stated, that he had already formed an opinion on the case and that considerable evidence would be required to shake his conviction of the prisoner’s guilt or innocence he was rendered ineligible. for service on the jury. By a tedious process every one of the 300 might be eliminated and then the county sheriff would have to scour the countryside searching for more men. No such procedure hampered the course of justice in New Zealand. Another factor bearing upon the more equitable despatch of.cases in the Dominion was the fact that accused persons were not submitted to ‘‘newspaper trial” before appearing in Court. In America charges against people were given great prominence even before evidence was heard in a Court. Every conceivable aspect of a case was reviewed and when the trial occurred evervone was acquainted with the circumstances. Jurors were often excused because they admitted that they had already made up their minds from newspaper reports. Some cases were so fully dealt with beforehand that it was not unusual for the venue to be changed to another county where the case had not received such publicity. The - practice of wearing wigs and fowns, in accordance with the old Inglish custom, was a noticeable feature of the New Zealand Supreme Court. This was not done in America, but the observance of the traditional Court-wear added to the dignity of the surroundings. The Supreme Court had struck his as upttolding a fine tradition, Mr Bigham. said. There was an orderly procession of cases, a strict adherence to the spirit as well as to the letter of the law and an atmosphere surrounding the proceedings in keeping with the high judicial system for the maintenance of which the Court existed.