TRIAL BY JURY.

Waipa Post, Volume XX, Issue 1244, 18 May 1922, Page 4

TRIAL BY JURY.

,WE direct attention to a state of affairs which is becoming increasingly common in New Zealand, that is, the failure of juries to come to a unanimous decision in criminal cases. This circumstance, which protrudes itself with a frequency which is truly amazing, and which, in one particular case in mind, has actually operated to defeat the ends of justice at more than one trial of-the .person concerned, has occupied the attention of our Legislature, but so far without remedial measures being enacted. It will be re-

membered that the'Legislative Coun-

cil last session, for the third 'or fourth time, passed a Bill providing for the accepting, except in cases of capital charges, of a majority verdict of a common jury in criminal prosecutions. The Government did not, however, take up the measure, which was introduced by a private member, or include it among the list of Bills that should be passed into law. If it considers that the reform which the measure proposes to introduce is'riot desirable or necessary, it does not take the which the Attorney-General has expressed on the subject, for his opinion stands on record that the existing law dbes not tend to the due administration of justice, and that a change in the direction of providing that the verdict of ten out of the jury of twelve should be accepted, would lead to a more regular and more consistent administration of criminal justice in New Zealand. This, it is to be observed, is the opinion, as .well, of the majority of the members of the Supreme Court Bench —an opinion based on their experience of the administration of justice in the courts over which they preside—and we venture to think that it is the opinion also of the great majority of persons who have bestowed careful thought on the matter. The fact upon 'which opponents of the reform have relied, that the proportion of cases of disagreements on the part of juries is not large, does not constitute a valid argument in favour of the retention of the system that demands a unanimous verdict. It is somewhat surprising, all things considered, that the proportion of disagreements has not been larger. Juries are composed, quite properly, of all sorts and conditions of men, and it follows from their composition that they frequently include individuals who entertain strange and foolish beliefs and prejudices which influence them, perhaps quite honestly, in the formation of their judgment upon the evidence. Nor can the possible presence of dishonest persons in a jury be wholly ignored, even although there may be no reason to suspect the existence of an evil of this character in New Zealand to the extent to which it has been alleged to exist in some of the Australian States. But, whether there be jurors who are honestly perverse or perversely dishonest, it is a reasonable claim that the community should be afforded protection against their obstructiveness of the course of true justice. The amendment of the law that was proposed last session aimed at the substitution of a ten-twelfths majority verdict for a unanimous verdict in other than capital cases. There is no matter except one affecting administration .of justice in which a majority of ten votes to two would not be accepted, and we cannot perceive any sound ground upon which such an overwhelming majority should not be accepted as expressive of the verdict of a jury upon all criminal charges that are at any rate not of the very gravest kind.