PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21505, 31 May 1933, Page 13

PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

JURYMEN'S DUTIES DISREGARDING INFLUENCES JUDGE ON BOOKMAKING CASE [BY TELEGRAPH —OWN CORRESPONDENT] NEW PLYMOUTH, Tuesday Tho importance of keeping tho administration of British justice pure and abovo any suggestion of outside influences was stressed by Mr. Justice Reed when summing up yesterday in a bookmaking case, ono of several heard at the present sessions. He stated that justice as administered within tho Empire had earned encomiums from foreigners. He urged juries to guard jealously tho reputation the system had earned, and to bo careful not to give -cause for lack of confidence in the system. Whatever jurors' opinions were on the merits of the law, while that law stood their duty was to administer it strictly in accordance with their oaths.

In the circumstances of this series of bookmaking cases, Mr. Justice Keed said he felt it necessary to emphasise that the administration of criminal law within the British Empire was vested in a Court consisting of a Judge and Jury. The Judge was responsible for seeing that the facts were fairly presented, but it was the responsibility of the jury to find a verdict on those facts. "You are all sworn to find a verdict in accordance with the facts, just as I am sworn to see that justice is properly administered," said His Honor. The proper administration of Justice was the backbone of society. The Judge and jury wero not justified in allowing any outside matter to influence them. Unless that was appreciated, the administration of justice became a farce. Any member of a jury, who, in the breach of his oath, allowed any outside thing to influence him, was failing in his duty and acting as a traitor to his country. He admitted that a difficulty arose in connection with the law relating to bookmaking. Many of those likely to be called for jury service did not believe in the law against bookmaking, and another factor was that in small places the accused might bo known to some of the jurymen. A weak or dishonourable man might allow these things to influence him, and, in a perfectly clear case, a jury might be unable to agree because one or two members had allowed themselves to bo so influenced. " That is a reproach to the administration of justice and brings it into contempt," observed His Honor, " and to my mind it is very much more serious than if the whole country were engaged in bookmaking." The function of juries was to carry on the system that had been in force in the British Empire for centuries and had hitherto proved satisfactory. If, after bringing thoir minds honestly to bear on the evidence, jurymen had a reasonable doubt, such as would cause them to act or not to act in any of the important affairs of their own lives, it was their duty to acquit the accused, but if jurymen had no reasonable doubt it was their duty to their consciences and their country to bring in a verdict of guilty.