Jury Law Change Right - And Wrong
Thursday 22 Jan 2004 Stephen Franks Press Releases -- Crime & Justice
ACT New Zealand Justice Spokesman Stephen Franks today welcomed plans to replace unanimous jury verdicts with majority
verdicts, but worried that another part of the package would erode key rights protecting defendants if the establishment
decides to gang up.
"This erosion of rights is represented by the prosecution's ability to override a jury trial election on alleged threat
of intimidation - an ability that could end up being misused," Mr Franks said.
"The risks with majority verdicts are worth running. The end of the right to a jury trial in complex and lengthy cases
- and where the prosecution alleges threatened intimidation - will be tempting for the justice authorities where they
think a jury might refuse to convict.
"Jury involvement has been a safeguard with unpopular law, or where the jury thinks the Government is abusing
prosecution power. These possibilities are justification for protecting the ancient right to a trial by one's peers,
rather than a Government-appointed judge.
"Further, if Justice Minister Phil Goff were truly serious about removing the rogue element from our courts and justice
system, then he would address those rogue law-writers and rogue judges who refuse to toughen up on crime - as wanted by
92 percent of the population.
"Real jury reform would see juries given the power to ban an offender from receiving parole, or even to set the
sentence. When judges will not give out the maximum sentence to a criminal, perhaps 12 representative citizens will," Mr
Franks said.
ENDS
For more information visit ACT online at http://www.act.org.nz or contact the ACT Parliamentary Office at
act@parliament.govt.nz.