ABORTION CASES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23730, 10 February 1939, Page 10

ABORTION CASES

LAW AND ITS ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBILITY OF JURIES IMPORTANT JUDICIAL STATEMENT (Per United Press Association) AUCKLAND, Feb. 9. , The law and its administration in New’ Zealand in regard to abortion cases was the subject of an important statement by Mr Justice Callan in the Supreme Court when addressing the jury at the close of a case in which a woman was charged with the illegal use of an instrument. His Honor referred to the alleged action adopted by some jurymen in such cases and pointed out what their clear duty was. “ From time to time in quite a public manner criticism —adverse criticism from various quarters—is voiced as to the administration of the law with regard to this particular class of offence,” said his Honor. “It has been suggested by various persons that this is a class of crime in which it is peculiarly difficult to obtain a conviction even when the evidence is very clear, that juries do sometimes evince a disinclination to do what everybody else taking a dispassionate view thinks is their duty. “ I am not saying for one moment whether I associate myself one way or another with that criticism, but it would be idle for me in my position to pretend that I do not know of it, and I can see that it is my duty to refer to it in case the convictions of those who make this criticism should be in any respect well founded. “What is suggested,is that some members of the community have strong feelings that the law in regard to this crime is unjust and should be unmade or altered, or that its administration is unjust or unfair and meets with their disapproval. I know nothing about that, but that is what is said, and what is suggested is that the gentlemen who happen to come on juries do sometimes take an improper advantage of the opportunity that their duty as jurymen affords them to dismiss a case where they should convict. “That, of course, is obviously wrong from a great many points of view if it ever happens,” his Honor added. Members of the court had their various duties, but there was a limitation upon their responsibility and upon their rights and powers. None had power to make the law in democratic countries. That was done by members of Parliament whom all had the opportunity of electing. It was very wrong, unjust and unfair, if it ever happened, that a juryman, because of the accident of the ballot which allowed him to sit on a jury, took the opportunity of saying, “ I do not like this bit of law, and I am not going to administer it. It would be just as unfair and hopelessly improper if he, as a judge, knowing a certain thing was the law, refused to join in administering it because of his private opinions. “It should not really be necessary for you or me to stop to consider whether there is anything to be said for the present state of law,” he added. “It is sufficient that it is law, but for your comfort let me remind you of one or two considerations. The practice of illegal operations notoriously leads to a serious danger to the health and sometimes to the life of the woman practised upon. That is not far-fetched. I assume that without being puritanical or taking any unduly strict view of morals, and quite realising the temptations to which youth in particular is assailed, any reputable citizen of either sex would like to see the youth of the country keeping reasonably straight in the matter of sexual morality and not drifting into all kinds of licence and sexual excess. Well, there is no blinking the fact that if the unpleasant consequences which they wish to avoid in this sort of indulgence are known to be easily removable, you will have a very sure set of circumstances which will discourage restraint and encourage licence.” His Honor added that it was no doubt that for such reasons the lawmakers of Britain and New Zealand had thought it proper to make an offence the class of conduct of which the woman was accused.