WOMEN AS JURORS.

Taranaki Daily News, 10 July 1923, Page 4

WOMEN AS JURORS.

REASONS AGAINST PROPOSAL THE COST OF JURIES. NEW SYSTEM PROPOSED. By Telegraph.-—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House this afternoon, the Minister for Justice (the Hon. C. J. Parr) moved the second reading of the Juries Amendment Bill, which he said was mainly the result of a suggestion made by departmental officers. In civil cases when a common jury is employed the parties to the case are asked to bear part of the cost of the jury. At present it costs the State £8 per day for a jury of twelve, and of this it was proposed to maKe the parties to the action pay £4 per day. In civil cases withdrawn from hearing after i ur y was called the litigant would be expected.to pay for the jury, but a refund of the jury fees would be made if reasonable notice be given and tlie case does not go before a jury. The Bill was largely a machinery measure. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) intimated that in committee he would move an amendment providing for the appointment of women jurors. Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) supported the proposed amendment, but objected to the Crown’s right of unlimited challenge in criminal cases. The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) thought New Zealand should lead the van in according women their right to serve on juries. Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) admitted the right of women to serve on juries, but felt that as a practical measure it was unwise, and one which women did not desire. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellingtoit Central) said every women’s society in New Zealand which had given any thought to the matter was in favor of women being permitted to sit as jurors. Mr. Parr, in reply, said there bad been very little criticism of the *Bill itself. It had been said it was a taxing Bill, but that was not so.- The fees asked for would not come out of the pockets of the people, but from the litigants, who were wealthy enough to have a case Involving over £5OO. After this payment was made by the litigants the State would still be some £l2 per day out of pocket. The Minister defended the right of challenge by the Crown, which was not unfair to the prisoner, but was a precaution in the interests of Justice. Cases in which a prisoner suffered injustice because of the Crown’s right of challenge were rare indeed. So far as women jurors were concerned, Mr. Parr pointed out that the service would be compulsory, and in the great majority of cases it would be exceedingly irksome, especially to mothers of young families. There were many walks of public service in which women could serve, but sitting on juries was not one of them. The Bill was read a second time on the voices and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.