-
Related
An overhaul of the justice system has opened the way for juries to reach a verdict with just 11 out of the 12 members agreeing.
Critics say it will reduce the amount of certainty in the justice system.
The Criminal Procedures Bill heralds the partial abolition of preliminary hearings which have recently been criticised for putting victims through unnecessary emotional trauma.
Instead, evidence will be submitted direct to judges, although they will have the power to call a hearing if they see fit.
The legislation is also designed to stop rogue jurors producing hung juries. Eleven-to-one jury verdicts - instead of the current rule that the verdict must be unanimous - will now be allowed.
Justice Minister Annette King says this will mean an individual juror will not be pressured into returning a verdict they believe is wrong.
"It's very hard for everybody to always agree on everything and often in cases you will have a juror or jurors who have their doubts," says King.
Not every major trial will have to involve a jury either. King says the legislation allows for judge-only trials in cases that are likely to be long and complex.
She says the reform will allow fairer trial processes and reduce the prospect of people having to serve as jurors for unnecessarily long periods.
Doubts
But some in the legal profession have doubts about the change.
Law Society Criminal Law Committee convenor Jonathan Krebs says lower end crimes such as speeding tickets are the types of cases judges should be deciding on their own.
"The changes are wide-reaching and there will be a period of uncertainty while those in the system get used to them," says Krebs.
He says historically juries decide serious crime cases and that seems to be the way society likes it.
Marie Dyhrberg, an Auckland barrister, says its makes juries' irresponsible.
"Now if you are on a jury you can decide to opt out because it's too hard or because you don't want to send someone to jail," says Dyhrberg.
Supporters of the new system though say it reduces the chance of jury tampering. This tampering could take place by either paying off or scaring one juror and if they held out eventually, the jury would be declared hung and there would be a mistrial. Now, that juror's opinion could be set aside.
But Dyrhberg says New Zealand has never had a problem of juries being tampered with in the first place.
About eight in a 100 trials end without the jury agreeing. One such example was the trial of John Barlow. He had two hung-jury mistrials before a third trial convicted him of murdering Gene and Eugene Thomas.
Double jeopardy
Further changes also allow exceptions to the double jeopardy rule. The new laws mean a person acquitted of criminal offences can be retried in special circumstances, which include tainted acquittal, and compelling new evidence.
But Associate Professor of Law at Auckland University Scott Optican says when the Attorney-General first looked at the double jeopardy issue many years ago it was concluded that it violated the Bill of Rights.
He says the new law is unlikely to be used often as police need consent from the Solicitor-General to reinvestigate an acquitted person.
People can also now be tried twice for the same crime if there is compelling new evidence.
And to speed up the clogged wheels of justice, the District Court can now deal with meth drug trials, instead of the high court.
Dumping unanimous jury verdicts scored near-unanimous support in parliament, with National supporting Labour's law changes and only the Maori and Green parties opposing them.
The Criminal Procedures Bill has been in the pipeline for over four years and the new system will be reviewed by the Solicitor-General after two years.
