|
|
The |
|
Unanimous jury verdicts could be
abandoned next year after the Government's introduction of legislation that
overhauls the jury trial system. The legislation does away with the
long-established need for a unanimous verdict from all 12 jurors before
anyone can be convicted of a crime. It says an 11-1 verdict is enough. The bill also lets police seek a
retrial for those acquitted on the most serious charges if compelling new
evidence comes to light or the original trial is found to have heard tainted
evidence. But warnings from the highest
level say the change to double jeopardy rules breaches the Bill of Rights. "The proposal will result in
all persons who were accused and acquitted of these charges, regardless of
the seriousness of the relevant circumstances surrounding the charge, having
to live with the possibility of continued police investigation, renewed
prosecution and other onerous consequences of exposure to the criminal
justice system," Attorney-General Margaret Wilson said. A measure expected to provoke
complaints from defence lawyers is the fast-tracking of committal hearings to
speed up the time it takes to get to trial. Prosecutors will need to present
evidence only in written form, and defendants will have an oral hearing only
if a judge believes it necessary. The legislation will have its
first vote next week and could be passed next year. In a report to Parliament,
required under the Bill of Rights Act, Ms Wilson said the double jeopardy
rule was of "great significance and importance". "It is seen as a fundamental
building block of the criminal justice process and a basic safeguard of civil
liberty in our legal system. "The fundamental purpose of
the double jeopardy rule is to protect individuals against the excessive use
of State power. The State, with all its resources and powers, should not be
allowed to continually subject an individual to repressive and repeated
prosecutions by the State." The change to double jeopardy
rules was sparked by the trial of a New Plymouth gang member who got off on a
murder charge when a witness lied about vital fingerprint evidence. He could
not be retried even after the witness recanted. Ms Wilson said in cases where the
courts had heard tainted evidence the accused should be retried. But the net had been cast too wide
in the case of fresh and compelling evidence possibly being used to seek a
new trial in crimes involving a sentence of at least 14 years. That captured
more than 40 different offences, including blackmail and aggravated burglary.
|
