Grand Juries Must Go

Observer, Volume XI, Issue 754, 10 June 1893, Page 2

Grand Juries Must Go

The extraordinary action of the grand jury in throwing out the bill of indictment against Nicholson and the others concerned in the prize-fight through which poor Forgie lost his life has at least served one useful purpose. It has startled the people of the colony into a recognition of one of the grossest anomalies of our judioial system, and has shown them that justice may be flouted and travestied in her own courts and in the very faces oi "her highest judges. For this is most assuredly what has been done in the case under review. The grand jury has ■usurped the functions of jfcdge and common jury ; it has set aside the commitment by the Besident Magistrate, and has ignored the careful directions of the judge concerning the law of manslaughter. It has, in a word, released from custody persons against whom a sound 2?rima facie had been made out — persons who had clearly made themselves answerable to the law — and released them, too, without even the formality of a trial.

Surely the system -which permits such --a thing to be done is Beriously at fault. What is there to prevent the precedent established by this grand jury from being followed again and again ? Who knows when the next scandal of the kind may •occur, or what its nature, may be. As-

saming that any man of position or influence should place himself within the power of the criminal law, what is there to prevent his friends and associates from ' packing ' the grand jury or ' influencing ' it, and getting the bill thrown out, thus effecting the release of the accused before the case comes to trial. Wonderful possibilities are certainly opened up to the friends of those who mayin the future become entangled in the meshes of the criminal law.

Some of the reasons given by the members of this particular jury for their action are very amusing. They appear to have lost eight altogether of the fact that .their duty was simply to see whether a jarima facie case had been made oat for the common jury. They wholly exceeded their functions by devoting their attention to the probable outcome of the case and the possible position of the accdsed in the event of a conviction. One section thought, in view of the judge's interpretation of the law, that the defendants would be sure to be convicted, and that a heavy sentence would follow. Consequently, they thought it better to let them off. Another section wanted to release several of the accused, and send the others for trial. Yet another believed all the accused to be guilty, but took a merciful view of- the case, and, considering that this would be a warning to them for the future, decided to release them. And so on. But surely these were the proper functions of the judge and jury ?

I must confess that I would have been very sorry to have seen any trouble befall Mr Lindsay Cooke in this matter, for I do not believe he had any particular sympathy with or interest in the fight. His presence there was owing to mere chance, and he was very loth to discharge the duties pressed upon him. The same remark probably applies to Mr Wakefleld. I could understand the grand jury throwing out the bill against them, but their motive for vindicating others who promoted and took part in a fight in which a lad's life was presumably beaten out of him is beyond my comprehension.

But what an utter absurdity this grand jury system is after all — what a menace to the equitable and impartial administratration of justice. The system is supposed to be a check upon loss of time through vexatious indictments, but surely the committing magistrate is a sufficient check. There are not so many oases brought before the Court at each sessions that one or two more would make any very great difference, and how much better it would be that they should all be heard in open Court rather than that one such flagrant miscarriage of justice as that of last week should occur. We pride ourselves upon our system of trial by jury, but how weak and ineffective the system must be against the power of wealth and influence when a grand jury, in defiance of the law and' in spite of a damning array of facts against those accused, can throw out the bill and order the release of the prisoners. And however flagrant the case may be, the judge himself cannot interfere. This Bystem of revision by grand juries is opposed .to the principles of true democracy, and should be abolished. I hope the scandalous burlesque of justice last week will be the last nail in its coffin.