|
|
The |
|
Accused criminals could lose their
right to a trial by their peers if there are fears of juries being
intimidated. The measure is in government
legislation introducing sweeping reforms of the jury system, including the
abandonment of unanimous jury verdicts in favour of an 11-1 verdict. Parliament will vote on it for the
first time next week. The bill lets police seek to retry
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. 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
only written evidence, and defendants will have an oral hearing only if a
judge believes it necessary. Justice Minister Phil Goff
announced that prosecutors would be able to seek a trial by judge rather than
jury where there was evidence that jurors had been or might be intimidated. A
judge-only trial could also be sought in long and complex cases. ACT MP Stephen Franks said there
was a risk of the judge-only provision being misused. "Jury involvement
has been a safeguard with unpopular law or where the jury thinks the
Government is abusing prosecution power." 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. In a report to Parliament under
the Bill of Rights Act, Ms Wilson said the double jeopardy rule was of
"great significance and importance". "The fundamental purpose
. . . 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." 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, covering
more than 40 offences. |
