THE UNANIMITY OF JURIES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13693, 8 September 1906, Page 15

THE UNANIMITY OF JURIES.

TO THE EDITOII. Sir,—By a' little bill ol a single opera- I tivo clauso the Minister of Justice pro- j poses io / introdueo ono of (lie greatest ! changes over made in our legal procedure '■ —a. change which, I believe, will prove as beneficial as it ia im(>ortant; Tho bill j referred to is ono intended to do away j with the necessity for tho unanimity of , the jury in criminal cases. It must bo observed that the proposal is not to make i the verdict of a. bare majority sufficient, but to legalise in criminal .cases a verdict of three-fourths, and that only in ' ciisb of the jury, after tlireo hours' retirement, intimating to the presiding judge that there is no probability of their being unanimous—a rule that was' introduced in pivil cases a good many years ago. That a community so used lo sweeping changes in industrial and social mailers should so long have tolerated the mistrials, re-trials, and miscarriages of justice,' and the enormous expense and inconvenience directly attributable to this absurd law is indeed surprising. One can understand such conservatism and imlifiVrcnce in England,. whei'o the law of sanctuary and benefit of clergy was allowed to linger on for centuries, although it made Ihe punishment of crime a farce, and where as late as 1818 tho judges of llie King's Bench found themselves' compelled to allow tho claim of Abraham Thornton, charged. with having foully murdered Mary Ashford. to lie allowed io meet the charge by throwing ' down his glove (gauntlet)- on the lloor of Westminster Hall, and so challenging tlie girl's brother to -modal combat; and where as late as 1824 a litigant' presented himself at the Bar of , (lie King's Bench iircpaivd with bis compurgators to swear away 1 lie debt 1 Tho, rule 'requiring unanimity on the part of tho, jury is another of the common law relics of barbarism and superstition. Ilallam described it long.'ago as "a preposterous relio of barbarism," ami Uontliani denounced i£ au "no less' extraordinary than barbarous"; and in 1831 the iLaW Commissioners coudcmiied it. In the lUnitcd States Judge C'ooley, an eminent <iu(hority "» constitutional law, declared it to be repugnant. Jo all experience of lliihiau passions, conduct, and understandrg," and Mr- Justice Miller, of the tprenie Court of tho United States, has cMidcimied it. In 1 several Stales of the Union it has been abolished, and with the happiest _ rcsulle, according to another Federal judge. In almost all countrirs where trial by jury has been introduced in modern times Hie. practice is unknown: Hawaii, which lias recently, become a part of.tho Republic, has had for nearly half a. century a judicial system modelled oil that of tho Uniled Stales, with .judges of learning and ability; and Chief Justice Jutlil, who has had long experience at Ihu Bar and ou the Bench in j that country, said .recently:—"Unanimity in verdicts has never been required. Nino of tho 12 jurors who hear tho case oan condor a verdict. Forry-fivo years' exporionco has not , led the community to doubt tho advisability of this principle, and wo should part with it with regret." I; shall content myself with referring to two other countries, Germany and Scotland, in neither of which is a unanimous ■ verdict, required. In Germany a verdict of eight of the 12 jurors is neoessary for conviction, whilst a verdict of seven is sufficient for tin acquittal. . In Scotland tho jury consists of 15 members, and a bare majority is sufficient 1 either for acquittal or tor conviction. In a recent number of Blackwood, Lord Moncrieff Bays:—"lt is seldom, indeed, that a verdiot of a bare majority r -ivon, especially in capital cases < . . One great advantage of being able to obtain a verdict by a majority is that in criminal cases there is no risk of (ho case having to bo tried again, and in'my cxpcrienco I have found no tendency on tlio part of juries unduly to shorten their deliberation's on ncootmt of. tho majority being-able to return a verdict at once." .

AH reason arid analogy is against the . rulo requiring and. few of the more important of the criminal sittings of our Supremt Court pass without acquittals of guilty prisoners directly attributable to ( -lt. ■ If wo talio the criminal statistics of the Sup'rome Court, Dtineilin/i for 1905, what do'wo find? There ivcro 35 trials in criminal • eases, und 'only ill resulted in convictions; in 24 eases out of 35 there were verdicts of acquittal., and there can bo- little doubt that under a rational method of trinl. sueli as iliat either of Scotland or of Germany,, the result would have been very different. In another of the 35 cases, a charge of : attempt to murder, a verdict of insanity was re-turned-which caused a slioclc* of-'- surprise and disgust in the community, and led to tlio farco of a perfectly sane man having to be treated as it lnnatio. and maintained at tho public expense, when he should liavo suffered tlio penalty of his crime. And-yet wo ro on year after year .tolerating n practice that is contrary to all. reason and common sense. And even now it is doubtful whether the Minister of Justice will succeed in carrying. this great reform, and there is reason to believe that the main opposition-will coine from tho phalanx on which the gambling fralei'njty depends for its protection from tho social und legal vpfoimer; then shall be-raised the'cry'of the. liberty of the subject being in danger, and from members who are ready to pass any measure, however drastic it- may be in its interference with the liberty of tho subject, when the subject happens to he. not a bookmaker, but that worst of delinquents —an employer of labour.--I am. etc., September .3. J. MacGhecor.