SIR ROBERT STOUT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19205, 23 June 1924, Page 3

SIR ROBERT STOUT.

TWENTY-FIVE TEAKS AS CHIEF JUSTICE. (Feoji Oue Own Correspondent.) AUCKLAND, Juno 21. Rir Robert, Stool completed a-quarter of a century ns Chief Justice to'day. In an interview be expressed the opinion that the people of New Zealand were now better behaved than they used to be. Thorn was certainly an improvement, which was reflected in the diminution of serious crimes Mint were formerly prevalent. It was true that there had been an outbreak of burglaries and thefts, but he thought that the crime was relatively less than previously. The war was responsible for a mental effect upon people, and a temporary outbreak of crime was not unexpected, but be thought the wave was passing now. The question of. unanimous .verdicts being required in criminal cases before a conviction could he obtained was discussed by fcir Robert, who declared that the first great reform should should be dealt with in the trial of criminal eases was that unanimity of the jury should not be insisted upon. The present position, ho said, was ridiculous. It has to be remembered that in .Scotland, whore a jury' consisted of 15, a hare majority was sufficient, even where the charge was one of murder. Nor was unanimity required in Franco or Clermnnv or in some of the States of America. It was the English theory that there must bo unanimity, hut in his Honor’s opinion it generally ended in justice lining defeated. Cases had been tried two and three times where there could have been no reasonable doubt on the part of anv reasonable persons as to the guilt of the accused. Sir Robert did rot suggest, as had been hinted elsewhere, that juries could he got at in New Zealand, hut juries were fallible people. and in his Honor’s opinion unanimity was not necessary In the dominion we had already abandoned a rule which had been in operation in England for centuries—of unanimity in civil cases, A majority verdict of nine against three was now accepted, and he thought that even seven against five was sufficient, both in civil and criminal cases. He pointed out that there was power to order a new trial if a verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that was a safeguard. “There are several evils in our midst,” continued the Chief “One is gambling, and another is drink. _lf we could got rid of gambling and drink wo could get rid of at least one-third of our crime, but our people apparently do not think so, and the responsibility rests on them. At least one-third of the criminals who come before the Prisons Board attriuiite their failure to drinking, hut I think that gambling is worse. In the olden days there were fewer race meetings and very little, bookmaking, and they had not the totalisator, which is simply legalised gambling. People went to race meetings then to meet their chums and to puss a day of remembrance, hut now they go to races to gamble, and not for any sport at all. for I do not call gambling sport, hut rather the curse of spo r t. T have not been to a race meeting since 1888,” In answer to a query as to the status of the New Zealand bar, Sir Robert expressed regret that it was not compulsory tor all barristers to qualify by examination. He thought that any man worth his salt could easily qualify, and that the present method of becoming a barrister by virtue of the fact that a man had practised a s a solicitor for five yeais had a tendency to lower the profession. The amalgamation of solicitor and barrister, which did not exist in the English or Scottish courts, was a development which was the result of local circumstances, and bo did not think it was detrimental cither to the public or to the legal profession. There were always certain lawyers who specialised in the various branches of the law.