THE JURY SYSTEM

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 174, 24 July 1936, Page 8

THE JURY SYSTEM

WIDENING OF ITS SCOPE JUDICATURE AMENDMENT BILL SECOND READING PASSED [Per Press Association! WELLINGTON, July 23. The Hon. H. G. R. Mason moved the second reading ol the Judicature Amendment Bill. He said that pr.or to 1925 the people had a greater right to trial by a jury than at present, out he explained that there was noth mg in the Bill dealing with criminal trials, but the Bill dealt purely with actions between parties. Prior to that year a claim for less than 150 was tried by a Judge, between £5O and £5OO by a Judge and jury of four persons, and for more than £5OO by a Judge and jury of twelve. Re cently the right of trial by jury had been seriously curtailed, too much so in the opinion of those handling cases in the Courts, and the practice ot having the cases heard by a Judge alone had not proved satisfactory. The legal profession favoured the old system to which the Bill proposed to revert. He held that there was no reason for adherence to the present provision I covering special juries, and said that the wording at present did raise a certain social prejudice. A special ; jury list could not contain the names of persons expert on all subjects. The present Bill did not leave the way open to abuse and special juries were limited to certain cases. He believed that the Bill would commend itself to the House. Much time at present was often involved or wasted in deciding whether a special jury should be called, and it frequently meant ■ needless expense to the parties. Special juries would be called in cases involving intricate commercial or banking transactions. Mr. Mason said that it was his ! dea to keep the Statutes tidy and where it was necessary to amend the Act I hat would be done by amending the Bill if it was a small matter, and by a Bill of his own if it was a big amendment. He wished to avoid the slovenly habit that had grown up in recent years of amending Acts by clauses in Finance Bills. The Hon. J. G. Coates: Not so much in recent years. The Hon. Mason: Oh yes, very much in recent years. Mr. Mason said such a practice was confusing and he would endeavour to have the practice stopped. Mr. W. P. Endean (Opp.. Parnell) said the present practice reduced expense, as juries’ costs did not have to be paid, and he maintained that trial by Judge alone was in the best interests of litigants. Mr. F. W. Schramm (Govt.. Auckland East) said the Bill aimed to place the law, as far as it referred to common juries, where it stood before Judges altered it. He said that there was no complaint by the legal profession at that time that that procedure was unsatisfactory. On the other hand, it held that it was more satisfactory and the legal profession desired that the old practice should be reverted to. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Opp.. Central Otago) said there was nothing much in tlie Bill to which objection could lie taken. He would like to know if the legal profession had asked f or changes in the rules. He thought the provision relating to the qualifications of a special jury should be widened to include other than commercial and banking experts. Mr. R. A. Wright (Opp., Wellington Suburbs) said the average jury was unsatisfactory as the best men were not on the jury list. The grand jury could very well be dispensed with. Judges had acted correctly in removing certain cases from the jury as the members of the jury had no experience in weighing evidence. Mr. A. C. A. Sexton (Country Party, Franklin) thought that Mr. Wright underrated the powers of a jury. He did not agree that grand juries should be abolished, as they acted as a safeguard to the private individual. He defended the jury system and said that jurymen were usually qujck to grasp points of evidence. He thought the old system should be reverted to as it gave the most satisfactory result. Mr. J. A. Lee (Government, Grey Lynn) upheld the jury system. The conditions of special jurors should be revised. He asked what was meant by “men of the best condition." Did it mean justice by avoirdupois? Was the tape measure to be placed round a man’s brow or round his waistline ? Was an “esquire" a man who owned a motor-car or a hire purchase system? He characterised the definition as an anachronism. Mr. T. H. McCombs (Government. Lyttelton) said that juries by tradition were protectors of the citizens and said the special knowledge of jurymen often assisted in arriving at a just decision. Mr. Mason said it could not be expected that one group of men would be experts in all things. He did not know the reason why the procedure was altered. The second reading was carried.