|
|
The |
|
Accused criminals could be
stripped of their right to a trial by their peers if there are fears of
juries being intimidated. The measure is in 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 also 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
evidence only in written form, 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
a jury in cases where there was evidence that jurors had been or may be
intimidated. A judge-only trial could also be sought in particularly 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 prosucution 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. 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, "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. 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. |
