ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN N.Z.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 90, Issue 168, 23 July 1946, Page 4

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN N.Z.

REVIEW BY SIR MICHAEL MYERS, DUE TO RETIRE (P.AJ Wellington, July 23, Criminal appeals, the Jury system, women Jurors—or lack of them—ani the sentencing of prisoners as subj jects to which the judicature ana socety were jointly concerned, wen reviewed hy the Chief Justice, Michael Myers, in the Supreme Court to-day in his address to the Gran] Jury. It was the last occasion on whid he would have the privilege of aa dressing a Grand Jury, he said, ana it was appropriate that he should sq something on matters affecting thi administration of justice in this count try. Referring to the Criminal Appeal Act, passed last year, he said this wai of particular interest to him becauaM he was largely responsible for the fa« that it was introduced and passed. The Act enabled appeals to be mada by prisoners, either against thejn conviction or their sentence, and h$ regarded it as a matter of import* ance. Until 1920 there had been nd right of appeal in New cvejt against sentence. In 1920 the Crimaa Amendment Act was passed giving * right of appeal. “I can say that for that legislation! I was partly responsible," His Honotfi said. j He referred to the number of ajH peals against sentences in 1945, and lhe number of instances in which reductions were allowed. "Howevafl careful a judge may be, and I catt assure you that they are careful. B shows that a revision of a .sentenod is just as necessary here as in othan parts of the Empire," Sir MichaU Myers continued. By the Criming Appeal Act, 1945, greater remediM than had existed under the 1920 Act. were conferred. The recent Act pertf mitted the Court of Appeal, in anjl appeal against a conviction, to allow; the appeal if the verdict had not had regard to the evidence on a point of law, or on any grounds that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The efficacy and justice of the jurM system were frequently a matter fan debate among lawyers, legislators and laymen. As for the Grand Jurffl he had heard it said that it was of nm use, and ought to be abolished. Than was wrong. | "It has a present and practical usm fulness," he said. "It is a venerabltf and valuable institution, and helps td maintain the administration of juqj lice. To abolish it would be retro«j grade." ( He had had over 54 years experM ence of the jury system, and he woultf be the last to say that a miscarriage of justice would not be found occasionally, hut there was a great deal, more talked about miscarriage of jus. tice than actually happened. "On some occasions I have sesni juries come back with a verdict which I did not agree, but. on giving

it more thought, I have come to the conclusion that, there was more reason and justice in the verdict than I had thought,” Sir Michael Myera said.

“There is one qualification to my remarks on the question of the jury system being kept intact. In 1941 there was passed an Act called the Women's Jurors Act. The sheriff has supplied me with the following information. There are on the Wellington jury roll 7650 names. Under the Women jurors Act service is not compulsory, but voluntary, and a woman must notify that she desires a seat on a jury. In 1943 17 women supplied their names as willing to serve as jurors. In 1944 none did so. In 1945 there was one, and in 1946 there have been two. The number of women jurors called since the passing of the Act has been one, and the number who have served is nil.

“Is it right, or is there any sense in keeping an Act like that on the Statutes? Either jury service for women should be compulsory, as for men, as duty and privilege, or else the Act should be repealed altogether,” said His Honour.

“I can tell you, as the result of very long experience, that the sentencing of prisoners is the most difficult, ana certainly the most responsible, of a judge’s duties. There is a lot. of public criticism of the performance of this duty. Sentences are too long, too short, too harsh, too lenient. But, no matter how great the public criticism, a judge should never allow himself to be moved by such clamour. He must impose, in every case, what, he thinks is a sentence appropriate to each particular crime.”