THE PIERARD CASE. A Failure of Justice.

Free Lance, Volume I, Issue 48, 1 June 1901, Page 8

THE PIERARD CASE. A Failure of Justice.

THE circumstances of this case are in everyone's mouth just now A married man named Edward Pierard, who is said to be "respectably connected," was charged with a very grave offence against a young girl under the age of consent. Also, with attempting, by unlawful means, to prevent the natural consequences of his reputed act. After a patient hearing m the lower Court, he was committed for trial. # • ♦ In the higher Court his case has engaged the attention of three juries and two judges All three juries failed to arrive at the unanimous finding that is required by the law. Thereupon, the Crown Prosecutor intimated that the Crown would not apply for a new trial, but would ask for stay of proceedings. The accused was discharged, after a remark from the Chief Justice that the responsibility for the failure of justice in this case rested with the Crown That was on Thursday last week On Saturday, Pierard left for Sydney. # • * Now, this is a scandalous state of affairs. The sacred duty devolved upon the Crown to persist with that tual until Pierai-d had either been honourably acquitted or else found guilty It has shirked its plain duty, and the machinery of justice has been brought into contempt The matter cannot be allowed to rest hei-c. There must be the fullest inquiry into it, so as to ascertain who gave m&tructions for the abandonment of proceedings, and to elicit the reasons for so strange a decision. # « • All soits of allegations are afloat concerning this extraordinary case, and scveial of them have found their way into print. It is asserted that two of the juries were all but unanimous foi conviction It is stated, and has not been denied, that in one jury only a single juror stood out, and that he held his oath so lightly that he played the foreman a game of cubbage to decide whether he should yield to the majority or remain firm He won, and therefore held his giound. m • * Alone among public organs, the "New Zealand Times" sees in this abandonment of the functions of the Crown, after three abortive trials, an illustration of the usefulness of the jury system And, it actually promulgates the outrageous doctrine that "there is no breach of a jury-

man's oath, but, on the contrary, a strict adherence to its spirit, when one or more men decline to record a conviction, even though there is no doubt of the guilt of accused, because they believe the law to be stupid and unjust " Moreover, the whole tenoi of the article suggests that the raising of the age of consent was both stupid and unjust * * ♦ Such shallow sophistry can impose upon no right-thinking man The juror's oath requires him to swear that "he will a true verdict give" upon the evidence set before him To put it m the power of any one man out of twelve to decline to record a conviction, no matter how clear the evidence /may be, simply because in his individual judgment the law is "stupid and unjust," is to make our Courts a by-word, and to turn our whole system of jurisprudence into a screaming farce. As Judge Edwards very forcibly remarked the other day, "to substitute the view of the individual juror for the law of the land is to reduce the administration of the law to a state of anarchy " Just so * * * This Pierard case, with its three abortive jury trials, serves but to enforce and accentuate our contention of a fortnight ago, that trial by jury is an effete institution. On that occasion we were commenting upon the Chief Justice's remark about the advisability of a change in the law so as not to require absolute unanimity from a jury. That remark was elicited by the failure of two successive juries to arrive at a verdict upon a charge of bigamy. Instances of this kind are of the commonest occurlcnce. * • * On Wednesday last, both at Dunedin and at Napier, juries failed to find a unanimous verdict in cases of offences against the weaker sex, and re-trials have been ordered. In Auckland, eight or nine months ago, Judge Conolly made indignant protest from the bench against the behaviour of a jury in bringing in a verdict of "not guilty" in a case m which the evidence and the sum-ming-up were strongly against the accused. It is this sort of thing oft repeated that is fast hardening urp - the public mind into the mood for sweeping away "trial by ]ury" altogether, and casting the responsibility of judgment upon the judge alone