The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1909. GRAND JURIES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2677, 6 December 1909, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, DECEMBER 6,1909. GRAND JURIES.

If the present Parliament sits long enough to do the work for which it was appointed members will give some consideration to the question of the abolition of grand juries, which was brought up in the House b.y Mr T. E: Taylor in a Bill that received a favorable reception at its first reading. The member for . Christchurch North urged that the system under which Grand Juries form a part of our judicial administration was wrong and that these bodies should be abolished. In his statement lie made some very strong comments on the recent case iu Christchurch in which the young man Humphreys was charged with manslaughter. In the lower courts evidence was produced which showed that Humphreys was driving the motor car on the Riccarton road at the time, when one of his .passengers, Captain Pavitt, was killed. The statement of several witnesses was to the effect that the accused was so much under the influence of liquor before he commenced the journey which ended so disastrously that they would not have been willing to ride ( in the car. In other words they felt that an accident was the natural result to expect from a driver in such a condition. On the other hand witnesses of undoubted integrity testified that in their opinion Humphreys was entirely sober. Hera was obviously a case for the fullest investigation that the law can provide. Anything less constituted an injustice to the friends of the victim of the tragedy and a reflection on the security of life in tho Dominion. Apparently the stipendiary magistrate took this view and promptly sent the case up to the higher court. Here the Grand Jury threw it out after the usual consideration in camera and the case got no further. The result came as a surprise to everyone in Christchurch and practically the whole town was indignant at the issue. The suggestion made by Mr Taylor that Humphreys had received favored treatment- that would not have been accorded to one of lesser social station may have been quite unfounded, but he merely voiced a feeling that was rife with a section of the Christchurch public. It must not be forgotten that apparent injustice following on secret deliberations is inevitably followed by suspicions of unworthy motives. .As things have turned out it would have been far better for Humphreys himself had ho been compelled to stand his trial in open court' by the common jury. In that event his acquittal would have brought with it a vindication so complete as to somewhat alleviate the memories of a terrible tragedy and the anxious period which succeeded it. If found guilty the utmost that would have stood against the unfortunate would have been an allegation of negligence, and in the shocking results of that negligence the motorist would jhave had the sympathy of the public to counteract the •.penalty 'inflicted by the law. As it is the mistaken action of a Grand Jury has aroused a good deal of indignation against him. However, the case will have not been without its value if it serves to bring about the abolition of an antiquated,and faulty institution. To a Christchurch . reporter a lawyer who has had a wide experience in criminal cases gave his. views as follows: “Perhaps the strongest objection to the Grand Jury lies in the secrecy withwhich it transacts its business. It considers cases in -camera.' - There is no record of the evidence it hears, and there "is ■ absolutely no check on the witnesses.” He says that “the function, of tho modern Grand Jury mainly is to .repeat, and repeat.badly, what has already been gone through by an able and experienced Magistrate. It does

not do this in open Court, or -with the assistance of-"counsel*'' Judge or other officer who'is' able to guide iti Tho system, I think, is unfair to accused persons, to the public and even to the members of the Grand Jury itself, who are asked tA do important work, which is placed before them without order and without method. It deals with charges in the absence of the accused, and it may deal with gossip, hearsay, or any other kind of evidence which would not be allowed in open Court. It sometimes considers twenty or thirty eases* in a few hours, obviously without earnest or conscientious study. It deals with a large number of witnesses, who sometimes give evidence on intricate points of law and fact, and passes them through as rapidly as if it was tallying sheep. Its work, therefore, is often unsatisfactory and bad.”