TRIAL BY JUDGE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 2835, 29 November 1892, Page 3

TRIAL BY JUDGE.

Tp what has hitherto been regarded as the palladium of the liberty of a JBriton —the right of trial by jury when accused of any offence against the law —is to be superseded by trial by judge without the aid of "twelve good men and true," so great and revolutionary a change ought not to be made except by statute passed in that behalf, after the fullest possible discussion and with the general assent of the people. It may be thought unnecessary thus to set out what will be regarded as a truism ; but it evidently is not so, in view of what took place in the Supreme. Court only a day or two ago. At the sessions now being held at Blenheim, Doctor and Mrs Hoadley ■were put upon their trial for wilful and criminal neglect of their infant child, and after hearing the evidence tendered by the prosecution and for the defence, the jury returned a verdict of "Guilty." But after the verdict had been recorded the judge agreed to hear further evidence for the defence—that of Dr Cleghorn, who testified that the treatment of the child was quite proper, and thereupon the Hoadleys were ordered to come up for sentence when called upon (which means never) and discharged. Now, we are not prepared to controvert the evidence of Dr Cleghorn, nor to assert that the verdict of the jury was not based upon a one-! sided presentation of the case. It i may, for aught we know, be the fact | that had the Hoadleys been sentenced they would have been martyrs to adverse circumstances. But all that isbeside the question, which is whether it' is right and proper that after a jury has given its verdict, fresh evidence should be admitted, and the verdict thereupon be practically set as.'de. We are of opinion that such a thing is distinctly neither right nor proper, but, on the contrary, is calculated to destroy that confidence in the administration of the law which has hitherto been so universal in all British communities, for if a judge can take evidence for the defence under such circumstances, why not also for the prosecution 1 And if a prisoner found " guilty "is thus to have a chance to get off by an appeal from the jury to the judge, why may not also, in the case of a prisoner found " not guilty," the prosecution be permitted to make another attempt to secure conviction by tendering additional evidence after the verdict of the jury has been given 1 This latter wou'd be an outrage against all sense of fair play it is true, but surely the former procedure is so also, if only in a less degree. It is proverbial that "doctors differ," and it may be quite possible that had the prosecution in the Hoadleys' case known that further evidence would be admitted, medical testimony opposed to that of Dr Cleghorn might have been adduced. Even if this were not so, it is quite easy to conceive of a cue in which testimony admitted after verdict might, while effectual with the judge, because uncontradicted, nevertheless be testimony that could be altogether upset by other witnesses if opportunity were given to call them. We confess that we are greatly surprised at finding it possible that such a course could be taken as was taken in this instance, and we shall be still more surprised if the circumstance does not lead to a very keen discussion during next session of Parliament. In the case of a prisoner convicted upon evidence which can be contradicted or upset, the proper course is to submit that evidence to the Governor in Council, who has power to mitigate any sentence imposed under such circumstances, and though it ia arguable that we ought to have a Court of Criminal AppeaJ, yet pending the establishment of such a Court, we protest strongly against the innovation of an appeal from the jury to the , judge, or the substitution of trial by judge for trial by jury which has certainly occurred in the case under notice.