|
|
The |
|
Widespread political support for
majority jury verdicts should see a change to a fundamental part of the
justice system this year. The Government has reintroduced
plans to scrap unanimous jury verdicts in favour of an 11-1 majority and to
allow trial by judge alone in some long or complex cases. The move comes after Labour backed off the move in 2001, following opposition
from the legal community. The Cabinet approved majority
verdicts in August 2001 and at the time Justice Minister Phil Goff said he
hoped legislation would be introduced to Parliament in 2002, in time for the
general election. The policy was adopted after a Law
Commission report in February 2001 which recommended scrapping unanimous
verdicts to reduce the risk of "irrational" jurors and hung juries.
About 13 per cent of all High
Court trials by jury and 8 per cent in the district court end in deadlock,
often forcing costly retrials. Right-of-Centre parties ACT and
National back the change to majority verdicts. National's justice spokesman
Richard Worth said his party had been looking at the issue and, while it
preferred also having a 10-2 verdict, it was likely to support the bill. "The courts, of course,
should still press juries to have unanimity of verdict because it's the
second- best outcome that there be majority
verdicts," he said. Some in the legal fraternity
remain concerned about the move. Queen's Counsel Judith Ablett Kerr
said such a move could not only remove a rogue juror but also the reasonable
juror who had rational doubts about guilt. "I agree that we should be
looking at it but maybe we should be looking at whether there is a better
system, not reducing the safeguards. Let's not water it down -- let's look at
improvements," Ablett Kerr said. "I sometimes wonder in this
country if we just like change for the sake of it. Here we are once again
fixing a system that isn't broken." The Law Society also has its
doubts, accepting majority verdicts only for acquittals but preferring
unanimous verdicts for convictions. Auckland District Law Society
vice-president Gary Gotlieb said he doubted the
change would reduce hung juries. But Goff said the Bill, which would
be before the House within the next few months, represented the best balance
between the rights of an individual to a fair trial and the need for society
to avoid hung juries due to one juror's personal position. Goff said he expected some defence
lawyers to object to the proposal, but he believed the only people
disadvantaged by the change would be organised
criminals such as gangs who attempted to intimidate jurors. Goff also wants judge-alone trials
in circumstances where juries could be intimidated, and in exceptionally
lengthy or complex cases. Planned higher fees for jury service -- and fines
for those who skip jury service -- may be wrapped into the same Bill. Government support partner United
Future offered cautious support for the change but said it had not decided
whether to vote for it. Leader Peter Dunne said he
believed majority verdicts should only be allowed with the approval of a
judge and only as a last resort. "The preference has to be for
a unanimous verdict but I think that in cases where it's clear that a jury is
deadlocked there is a case for majority verdicts. But one always has to
remember the Twelve Angry Men scenario," Dunne said. It was clear some jurors were
refusing to convict regardless of the evidence presented. The Greens oppose the move. MP Nandor Tanczos described the
proposals as a cost-cutting measure that would do little to enhance real
justice. "Eleven to one jury decisions
would mean faster justice but not necessarily better justice," Tanczos said. Hung juries were the result of
more complex cases with high degrees of technical information to digest. The
Greens supported increasing the entitlements for jurors. ACT's justice spokesman Stephen Franks
said the risks involved with majority verdicts were worth running. But he
warned against tampering with the right to a trial by jury in favour of a
"government-appointed" judge. |
