THE JURY SYSTEM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13279, 11 September 1906, Page 3

THE JURY SYSTEM.

Sir,—The Government's proposals togard to trial by jury have raised a most interesting question. Our jury system is often referred to as if it had been in existence in \- its present form from the time of the Groat Charter, or even from a still earlier: period. But I his is not. so. Th« system, as wo know it is the result of a gradual development. im'rt'marches of historians, and especially of Forsyth, show the progressive" stages by which the custom has grown. The modern common jury, springing as it does from a , body of witnesses sworn to find a. verdict according to their own knowledge, only reached its present stage by degrees. The Government's proposal to allow juries to decideby -majorities, if it wore given effect to, would only bring the law back, in slightly different form perhaps, to what it was long ago. The necessity for a unanimous verdict sprung from a Custom which certainly did not demand unanimity as we understand it. This ■'■ old ''"unanimity " was arrived at by the process of *'alforcement," which simply .consisted of adding men to the jury until its numbers had so increased that "it contained twelve persons of the same opinion. Before this point- was reached, however, there might obviously have been a score of jurymen called upon, in which case the verdict would simply be that of a majority of this number, In course of time the custom of " afforecme-ut " fell into disuse, but even then perfect unanimity was apparently not an absolute necessity, for in some old cases we find a verdict taken of eleven out of twelve jurors. There is no doubt, however, that since the fourteenth century a unanimous verdict only has been legal, though it was still accompanied by measures that the resulting agreement would not, in modern opinion, be regarded as real. It must often have been produced by coercion. Jurors might not only be refused meat and drink until they agreed, but they might also be carried about after the judges on circuit in carts until they came to reason. These means were all quite legal. Beyond them there were others which had not that virtue. During the 200 years prior to the famous Busholl's case, decided in 1670. when the rights of juries were finally settled, jurors wore frequently subjected to both fine and imprisonment for their verdicts or opinions. To show that the jury system has gone through many changes "is to take from it .something of the glamour which tends to make sacred that which bar, always been. And if the jury system is not entitled to this advantage it is unjust that it should have ' it. My own personal feeling is in favour of the unanimous verdict—at least for the most serious crimes. For treason, especially, it would seem wise to retain it, for, although treason is perhaps the rarest of all crimes in the present happy state of society, it is not well to cast overboard our lifebelts because the weather is fine. On the other hand, anybody opposing changes in .ancient laws has always to bear in mind the terrible evils predicted by great and far-seeing men, in days gone by, as sure to result from changes which experience has shown us to have been beneficial in every way. J." G. Had now. .