|
|
The |
|
A rogue or sole juror will not be
able to hold out against a person being convicted of a crime under jury law
changes being introduced next year. The new law will scrap the
centuries-old tradition that all 12 jurors must agree on a verdict. Instead,
an 11-1 vote will be allowed. Justice Minister Phil Goff says
the change will reduce the growing number of hung juries and stop organised crime and gangs intimidating jurors. He said reports from "people
in the justice system" told of gangs involved in the illegal drugs trade
trying to influence juries. "Unanimity, in my view, is
too high a threshold," Mr Goff said. "There is some evidence of
intimidation of juries." Allowing majority verdicts would
also eliminate the influence of "rogue" jurors, who may be simply unco-operative or unreasonable. It would also limit the risk of
bribery or corruption of a juror. If intimidation of jurors were suspected,
the prosecution would be able to apply to the courts for a judge to hear the
case without a jury. Mr Goff said such judge-alone
trials would be very rare, and he did not think the provision eroded a
defendant's right to a trial by jury. Under the planned law, juries may
also be eliminated in complicated and lengthy fraud cases. These would be
cases likely to last more than a month, or where the evidence would probably
be too difficult for many people to understand. The defence or prosecution would
be able to apply for a judge-alone trial. A 2001 Law Commission report
recommended that the Government allow majority verdicts. It said that in the previous year,
13 per cent of cases heard at the High Court resulted in a hung jury on one
or more of the charges being heard. The use of unanimous verdicts goes
back as far as the 14th century. But Mr Goff said he was being
conservative in preferring an 11-1 to a 10-2 majority verdict. It would
better ensure that a person was proved "beyond reasonable doubt" to
have committed a crime. He will introduce the Criminal
Procedures Bill to Parliament before the middle of the year, and changes will
take effect from next year. The Auckland District Law Society
vice-president, Gary Gotlieb, a defence lawyer, was
yesterday lukewarm about majority verdicts. "It's better than 10-2,"
he said. "My feeling is that if there was going to be a majority
verdict, it should be for an acquittal." Unanimous verdicts should be
required to secure a conviction. Mr Gotlieb
said he doubted the change would reduce the incidence of hung juries - where
jurors cannot agree - because splits in such cases tended to be between
several people, rather than just one person holding out against the other 11
jurors. The new law will also overhaul
conditions for jurors. Anyone called up for jury service
will be able to defer it for a year for work or personal reasons. Fines for people deliberately
trying to avoid jury service will go from $300 to $1000. It will also be against the law
for employers to discriminate against any worker called to serve on a jury. "There's a bit of carrot and
a bit of stick," Mr Goff said. "What we want is for people to do
their civic duty without being penalised by
it." Allowing people to defer jury
service reflected the pressure long trials put on a person and their
employer. Other changes in courtroom
procedure which do not require new law are also planned. They include recording
evidence for later transcription, rather than using stenographers. The Cabinet has approved the
change to majority verdicts, but Mr Goff also intends lobbying for increased
fees for jurors, and possible reimbursement for parking and childcare costs. Jury law reform ·
A jury will be able to decide 11-1 on a verdict. ·
A majority verdict will guard against intimidation and bribery of
jurors. ·
It will also reduce the prospect of hung juries. ·
A judge will hear a trial alone if a jury or juror is intimidated. ·
Judges rather than juries may hear complex fraud or lengthy cases. ·
Fines for people deliberately skipping jury service will be trebled. ·
Increased fees, childcare and parking payments for jurors are being
considered. |
