The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1918. THE WORK OF GRAND JURIES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 74, 25 February 1918, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1918. THE WORK OF GRAND JURIES.

In a recent issue the, “Manawatu Standard” discusses the work of

Grand Juries and remarks, with all respect to the opinion expressed hy Mr Justice Edwards in his charge to the Grand Jury at the. opening of the Palmerston North criminal sessions of the Supreme Court, that it is inclined to think that a more rational system of reviewing criminal cases sent up for trial might be introduced into the legal procedure of New Zealand. The “Standard” goes on to remind us that the right of trial by jury dates back to the twelfth century ? when ( Henry 11. extended the Norman practice of the “inquest,” previously con-' fined to causes in which disputes arose between propertied men, to allj cases in which his subjects were con-1 cerned. Professor Maitland, in his “Social England,”\ says that, in its origin, “trial by jury was rather French than English, rather royal j than popular,” but the English made it what it is, and “what it is, is very different from what it was.” It is supposed to have come from a proceeding begun by the Frankish kings, who, when their rights were in dispute, caused an “inquest” to be held, assembling “the best and oldest men of the neighbourhood, and examining" them on oath. It is here,” Professor Maitland says, “that we see the germ of the jury.” The Normans 1 brought the procedure of the “inquest” to England , and “their first important use of it was in the preparation of the Domesday Book, compiled out of the verdicts rendered by the men of the various hundreds and townships of England .to answer to a string of questions. Henry 11., bent upon making his justice supreme throughout his realm, put this royal remedy at the disposal of all his sub- j jects.” And this he did, not “by one general law, but piecemeal, by a series of ordinances known as assizes, some of which (the Assize of Clarendon, the Assize of Northampton, etc.), may yet be read, while others have perished.” Under the assizes, however, the jurors remained as witnesses, their verdicts being invariably founded upon “the personal knowledge of the jurors themselves respecting the matter in dispute, without hearing the evidence of witnesses in court.” It was not until the reign of Edward 111. that jurors took on their present function, that of delivering a verdict upon the evidence brought before them at the trials. The grand jury dates back to the days of Henry 111., when trial by ordeal gave place to “the petit jury.” When “Henry HI. bowed to the decree of the fourth Lateran Council, abolishing the ordeal.” there was sub- j stituted for it “our cumbrous, inherit- 1 ed system of two juries in criminal cases.” The grand jury, as it is now termed, “met at every assize and ses-' sion of the peace,” and were sworn and charged by the judge. They then considered “the bill of indictment submitted to them, heard what evidence they thought to be necessary, and, if they considered a prima facie case was thus established, they found a true bill. If they thought the charge was unfounded, they threw the bill out. Occasionally they made a presentment 1 or accusation on their own account against some person named, and, in such cases, the judge had the present ' ment put into the form of an indictment, and the ordinary procedure was then followed. Then. again, the 1 grand juries made other presentments

change in the law, or for the abate- [ meat of nuisances or grievances in ' their district. The changes that have taken place in the law, and in its administration, during the last century or so, have largely done away with the necessity for empanelling more than 1 the one jur y in the trial of criminal I cases. The strongest argument that might possibly he advocated in favour, of the retention of the grand jury is that it provides an additionl safe-j guard in the case of persons who may be wrongly charged with offences of which they are innocent. A grand jury, under English law, must' bej composed of “not less than 12, nor more than 23 persons.” Before a pris-* oner can he found guilty of a criminal offence he thus has theoretically, benefit of the protection afforded, hy ( two juries, together numbering (where the full grand jury is empannollcd) not less than 35 persons, who are sup-[ posed to be convinced of his guilt he fore rendering their verdicts against him. But, in practice { as the Stand-

ard says was stated by Mr Justice

Edwards in his charge at Palmerston), it is not necessary for the grand jury

to find a prisoner guilty. All it has to

do is to determine if there is sufficient evidence before it to justify the ease

being sent to the petit, or common jury. Cases repeatedly occur in which the “true bills” found by the grand jury result in the acquittal, after trial of the accused person. Underi our present-day procedure, a case, heard by a judge in criminal juris-] diction, has, first of all, to be tried hy ( a Magistrate in the Lower Court; the Magistrate has certain discretionary

powers which enable him to say whether the accused person, shall or shall not be sent up for trial. Unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there is a case for the accused to answer he

does not commit him to the higher court; and, if further safeguards are needed for the protection of an ac-

cused person, they are to be found in the Crown Law Department, whose officers can and do, examine and enquire into cases presented for the consideration of the Court. In most, if not all, of the Commonwealth States to-day, the. place of the grand jury is taken either by the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. The responsible officers are their advisers upon such matters, and they actually decide Whether a bill shall or shall not be filed against an accused person. Since presentments age made, only in cases where the evidence points to an offence having been committed by the accused person, after the facts have been carefully sifted, there is very little likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. “The calling together of a grand jury,” concludes the “Standard”, “to deal with cases involving offences of wlhich the jurymen have neither the legal, technical nor personal knowledge requisite, to a correct understanding of the accused’s criminality, or otherwise, appears to be not only an unnecessary expense, involving loss of time on the part of both judge and jurymen and Court officials, but also a needless call upon the commercial community, from which grand jurymen ar£ invariably summoned. Common sense seems to dictate that the finding of a bill against an accused person, should be. in the hands of someone having a knowledge of the law, and particularly of the law of evidence and, with the example of Victoria and other of the Commonwealth States before us, we have no

hesitation in urging the abolition of the grand jury system in this country —a system which business and other considerations impel us to regard as obsolete, and wholly out of keeping with twentieth century methods and procedure.”