THE JURIES ACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17092, 25 August 1917, Page 10

THE JURIES ACT

PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

DEBATE IN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

WELLINGTON, August 24. The debate on the Juries Act Amendment Bill was continued in the Legislative Council this afternoon.

The Hon. Mr Barr said tho requirement of unanimity in the decisions of juries seemed to him to be absolutely ridiculous. He did not belicye in the bare majority, since that arrangement might leave the decision to one man. He would vote for the Bill without committing himself to the three-fourths majority. lhe Hon. Mr Mac Gibbon said he did not believe that any exemption could reasonably be taken to a three-fourths majority verdict. , x

r lhe Hon. Sir W. Hall-Jones said ho would support the Bill, but if the measure reached the committee stage he would propose that a five-sixths majority should be inquired to vecure a conviction, and that unanimity of the jury should be demanded ii« capital cases. Tliivrc w re men in Parliament who had encroached on the privileges of the people by depriving persons accused of sedition of the right of trial by jury.

The Hon. Mr Paul said there was ■ now a new offence, of "seditious tendency," the interpretation depending upon the magistrate. He hoped there would be an opportunity to discuss that .point. He would supDort the Bill, but he would be no party to any weakening of the jury system. Sir Francis Bell ?a : d that section 118 of the Crimes ,Act, relating to the offence of inciting disaffection against- the throne,, tho Constitution, the Government, or the administration of justice, was subject to the qualification that no person should be deemed to have a seditious intention only because he intended in good faith to show that his Majesty had been mistaken in his measures or to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution, or to incite his Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution, the! Go vernment, or the laws. The Hon. Mr Harris opposed the Bill. The Hon. Mr MacGregor, in reply, said the did not intend to press the Bill during the present session. He realised that tha country would have to be educated to aoocpt an alteration of the jury system. He hoped evr-ntually .to see juries replaced by a bench of three \ judges. His proposal to legalise a thrpe-fourths majority system con stituted an important measure of reform He did not believe that any of the New Zealand judges were opposed to trial by jury, even, in civil cases. The tendency" of judges was to put the responsibility of decision on juries in order to avoid accepting it themselves. Ho would be willing to accept a five-sixths majority, with unanimity in capital cases. , The second reading of the Bill was approved by 13 votes to two.