THE CORONER'S JURY.

NZ Truth, Issue 67, 29 September 1906, Page 4

THE CORONER'S JURY.

"Some time ago this paper entered its protest against the ridiculous manner m which Coronial enquiries were conducted m Wellington, and asked that if 1 the authorities could not entirely abolish the system it should at least select as jurors clean, respectable -, and intelligent men, and so wipe out the professional Coroner's juror, who, usually of a morbid and gruesome. nature, never allowed an inquest to pass* by -without endeavoring to create a sensation by raising; bogies of murder and suicide, where the medical evidence showed death to be due to natural causes. The sentiments at that time expressed were echoed by Mr T. M. Wilford, M.H.R., m the House, one evening last week, when the item of "£4OOO, Coroners' Inquests," came up for discussion <m Committee. The hon. member moved a light reduction m the amount, and said he did so as an indication to the Government that the time had arrived when the Coroner's jury should he wiped out of existence. In his opinion the Coroner's jury was a relic of a barbaric age, an admission of the weakness and difficulty the Crown were m at criminal trials. The Minister for Justice had said on several occasions that Coroners' juries were for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of death where accidents had taken place, and m the case of arson, to ascertain whether or not a building had been wilfully set on fire by some person or persons. With regard to the first statement he (Mr Wilford) would like to reply. Which was the more competent 'to ascertain the cause of death, a medical man or a coroner's

jury ? If, instead of a jury, the Coroner stood alone, he, by the aid of medical evidence, could ascertain the cause, and report, it necessary, to the Attorney-General, who would then instruct the police to proceed, if police proceedings were necessary. The Minister- had also argued that Coroner's jury safeguarded the liberties of individuals who were suspected. He (Mr Wilford) contended that it had the contrary effect. After having heard only one side of the evidence, and that the evidence for the prosecution, could the verdict of a coroner's jury be called an impartial one ? The Minister had said that there were two sides to every case ; then should not a coroner's jury hear both sides ? They, however, heard no more evidence than that from witnesses produced by the police. Did the Minister think that the verdict of a coroner's jury Had no effect on the public mind ? Did he imagine that a verdict of wilful murder, arrived at by a body of irresponsible and often uneducated men, did not weigh m the minds of many unthinking people against the man afterwards to be tried ? Did the Minister not consider that the very publication of that coroner's jury verdict, amounting m some cases to wilful murder, created a prejudice m the minds of many of the people from whom the common jury were afterwards to be drawn ? He (the speaker) certainly did, and m a recent case m Wellington he proved it to be ■so. They had the instance of a coroner's jury which recently found a verdict of wilful incendiarism against a well-known man and when the case came to the Magistrate's Court not even a prima facie case was made out. Then there Avas that idiotic coroner's jury verdict at Auckland, where a volunteer blew out his brains while love-sick, and, as he was at the time suffering from the measels, the intelligent jury brought m a verdict—not that he died from a gunshot wound or that he blew out his brains— but that he iied through jealousy and the measles;! The Minister said that a coroner's jury arrived* at the cause of death. What did a Coroner's jury, general b/ composed of. men picked up haphazard, who happen to be loafinc; about the morgue, know about the meaning of medical evidence. Recently he heard of a case m which a doctor described the condition of the deceased and stated that there was hemorrhage of the ear, which at once suggested to him fracture of tlr? skull. When he examined the mastoid process and auditory meatus he found that the tympanum was suffused. A lot a coroner's jury could eather from those remarks ! Could the Minister give instances of the value'if a coroner's jury ? Could he give one instance where they had done better,, than what could have been done by an ordinary individual of common-sense acting as a coroner? In conclusion Mr Wilford contended that an Inspector of Police, if allowed to make the inquiries made by the coroner, could do all that , was necessary. He 'could lay. an information, if he found from the evidence that it was so warranted., Indeed Mr Wilford could have gone a great deal further m his remarks, but what he said, it is' to be hoped, will have sufficed to convince the Minister of Justice that the Coroner's jury inquest as it. is known- m New Zealand is a rude farce, and that the time has arrived when some radical alteration should be' made m the system. Whether it is the effect of the strictures made recently m this paper or not, the fact remains that there has of late been a singular change m the class of Coroner jurors and the consequence has been that the farce has been robbed of much of its ludicrousness, while the verdicts returned have teen of a much more sane nature. Besides, the element of jury professionalism has been reduced, so much so that many business men assert that they would gladly, if possible, provide substitutes when i they are notified to serve, which is impossible.