THE GRAND JURY

Northern Advocate, 15 March 1913, Page 4

THE GRAND JURY

j Why it was that Mr. Justice Ed- | wards suddenly broke out yesterday a* Westport into a defence of the grand jury system was not made clear in the telegraphic message we published. Nothing has been said lately on the subject by responsible people, and though the subject has bean raised fruin time to time it had generally boon supposed that the campaign once in progress to abolish grand juries was dead. About ten years ago the question attracted considerable attention in Parliament, a clause being introduced to a Bill providing that on a criminal indictment being filed by the Crown, the indictment should go direct to the common jury instead of as at present being subject to review by thn grand jury. The parliamentary discussion was exceedingly interesting. Their honors the Supreme Court judges were appealed to for an expression of opinion, and, if we remember rightly, were rather divided. Those of them who favoured the grand jury being re-

tamed did so for a reason somewhat akin to that now put forward by Mr. Justice Edwards, namely, that the grand jury at one time was a guardian of liberty against a corrupt, vindictive administration of the law, and though it could not be regarded now ia this light there was always the of conditions arising in which it would play its historic part oj" protector. This is practically all that the grand jury system to-day rests upon, and taking all the circumstances into consideration most people will come to the conclusion that such an argument is entitled to very little respect. Historically the j origin of the grand jury is to be t'cund in the twelve thanes of each hundred who in Anglo-Saxon times presented or accused persons who by commcin fame were guilty of crime. In less primitive times the functions •of the jury were slowly changed until the jury was established on the basis it now occupies for considering bills ot indictment. At a certain stage of •development, particularly during times of political upheaval and religious strife in England, the grand, jury did undoubtedly shield the public ] to some extent from a power unscru- j pulously used, but in modern times the changes in society, in the constitution, have been so great, and such sweeping alterations have occurred , i.i the region of authority, that the grand jury is almost universally regarded as obsolete. To say that a system was once admirable, but though now practically useless may in the event of certain inconceivable happenings again prove useful, is not a convincing argument against change. Indeed, «uch an argument applied to the grand jury would have maintained it in its old time srarus of the accuser. So far as people indicted with offence against the criminal law are concerned, it may nor unreasonably be held that it would hi better for them and everyone concerned if indictments were dealt with by a. common jury instead of, as sometimes seems to be the case, hurr.e I out of the back door without op-;n .trial.