Kerre Woodham: Should juries be reserved for the big-ticket crimes?

There's an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied.  

It's a legal maxim that means if legal redress to an injured party is available, but it's not forthcoming in a timely fashion, that's effectively the same as having no remedy at all. I don't think it's entirely true - a conviction and a prison term would bring some relief for victims of serious crime, but the stress of waiting years to see that justice delivered would be a heavy burden for the victim and their families.  

The Government's looking for feedback on ways to speed up the court process. Currently, people can choose a jury trial if they're charged with an offence that has a maximum penalty of two years or more in prison. The discussion document from the Government is requesting feedback on whether that threshold should be extended to three years or more, five years or more, or seven years or more. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Heather du Plessis-Allan last night how the changes might work: 

PG: There will be arguments around three years, five years or seven years. Seven years would be a big change, and it would certainly have a huge impact on the overall efficiency of the courts, but of course you’ve got to balance that against, you know, the ancient right. And so I think it would be an interesting discussion. I certainly think we should lift it, it's just a question of how far.  

HDPA: What kind of a crime we're talking about that carries seven years in jail?  

PG: Well, things like tax evasion and arson.  

HDPA: Indecent assault?   

PG: Yes, and so five years for thinking of things like aggravated assault and three years, it would be things like, you know, driving while disqualified or with excess breath alcohol.   

HDPA: I don't think you should go for a jury if you've just been pinged boozing behind the wheel, do you?  

PG: Well if you lift it to three years you'd exclude those and so yeah, I think that's a very reasonable starting point.  

That was Heather talking to Paul Goldsmith last night. Law Association Vice President Julie-Anne Kincade told Mike Hosking this morning that right now in the Auckland District Court, you'll get a jury trial faster than a judge-alone trial. And we need to be careful about using a “blunt tool” to try to solve the problem of the backlog within the courts. And certainly, there are improvements to the court process she outlined that have come into play just this year. Category 1 and 2 offences are heard in the district court before a judge alone. You don't have the choice of a jury trial. Category 3 offences that carry a maximum penalty of two or more years in prison, you do get the choice right now. Category 3 offences could include aggravated assault, threatening to kill, dangerous driving, or a third or more drunk driving conviction - that boozed behind the wheel one that Heather was talking about. So that's Category 3 where you do get the choice of judge-alone or jury.  

They are serious offences, but do we really need a jury of our peers to sit in judgment of those crimes? Shouldn't we save the jury trials for the most serious crimes, the ones that are heard in the High Court -the murder, the manslaughter, the rape, the aggravated robbery? Jury trials are vitally important, they date back to Athens. Chief Justice Sian Elias and her colleague in the Supreme Court, Justice McGra

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the carrywood of morning's podcast from News Talk,
said b there's.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
An old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. It's
a legal maxim that means if legal redress to an
injured party is available, but it's not forthcoming in a
timely fashion, that's effectively the same as having no remedy
at all. I don't think it's entirely true. A conviction

(00:32):
in a prison term would bring some relief for victims
of serious crime, but the stress of waiting years to
see that justice delivered would be a heavy burden for
the victim and their families. The government's looking for feedback
on ways to speed up the court process. Currently, people
can choose a jury trial if they're charged with an

(00:54):
offense that has a maximum penalty of two or two
years or more in prison. The discussion document from the
government is requesting feedback on whether that threshold should be
extended to three years or more, five years or more,
or seven years or more. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told
Heither deplocy Ellen last night how the changes might work.

Speaker 3 (01:17):
There will be arguments around three years, five years or
seven years. Seven years would be a big change and
It would certainly have a huge impact on the overall
efficiency of the court, but of course you've got to
balance that against the ancient right and so I think,
you know, I think it'll be an interesting discussion. I
certainly I think we should lift it. It's just a
question of how far What kind of a crime are

(01:37):
we talking about that carries seven years in jail? Well,
things like tax evasion yeah, and assault yes, and so
five years for thinking of things like aggravated assault, and
three years it would be things like you know, driving
well disqualified with excess breath alcohol, so.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
You should go for a jury if you've just been
pined boozing behind the web.

Speaker 3 (02:04):
Yeah, So if you lifted the three years, you'd exclude both,
and so yeah, I think that's a very reasonable starting point.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
That was Paul Goldsmith talking to Heather last night, or
Heather talking to Paul Goldsmith last night. Really Law Association
Vice president Juliane Kincaid told Mike Costing this morning that
right now in the Auckland District Court, you'll get a
jury trial faster than a judge alone trial, and we
need to be careful about using a blunt tool to
try to solve the problem of the backlog within the courts,

(02:36):
and certainly there are improvements to the court processes she
outlined that have come into play just this year. Category
one and two offenses are heard in the district court
before a judge alone. You don't have the choice of
a jury trial. Category three offenses that carry a maximum

(02:56):
penalty of two or more years in prison, you do
get the choice right now. Category of three offenses could
include aggravated assaulting to kill, dangerous driving, or a third
or more drink driving conviction that boost behind the wheel
one that Heather was talking about. So that's category three
where you do get the choice judge alone or jury.

(03:19):
They are serious offenses, but do we really need a
jury of our peers to sit in judgment of those crimes?
Shouldn't we save the jury trials for the most serious crimes,
the ones that are heard in the High Court, the murder,
the manslaughter, the rape, the aggravated robbery. Jury trials are

(03:42):
vitally important. They date back to Athens. Chief Justice shorn
Elias and her colleague in the Supreme Court, Justice McGrath
summed up the importance of the jury in the case
of Sema versus heron in twenty twelve, she said, in
exercising that function, jurors bring a diverse range of perspectives,

(04:03):
personal experience, and knowledge to bear in individual cases which
judges may lack. As fact finders, jurors determine which of
the admissible evidence presented at trial is to be believe
and acted upon. Juries ultimately decide whether the facts fit

(04:24):
within a particular legal definition according to community standards. In
this way, they reflect the attitude of the community and
their determination of guilt or innocence. The right to trial
by jury is also generally seen as providing a safeguard
against the arbitrary or oppressive enforcement of the law by

(04:46):
the government. They go on to say that in cases
where they feel the government or the forces of government,
through the prosecutor and through the police, are using a
sledge hammer to crack a walnut, then juries will acquit.
They'll go, No, this is oppressive, this is unfair. You've
i mean, way too heavy handed. We the community think

(05:09):
this is wrong, and it's a way for the community
to say to the state, you've overstepped the mark. So
vitally important, but should juries be reserved for the big
ticket crimes? Intuitively, I think, yes, you know, it should
be for the big ticket ones. But we don't want

(05:32):
judges clearing up the backlog and the courts by whipping
through cases without due thought and process. I'm not saying
they would and they don't. At the moment, judges seem
to be a little bit too thoughtful, a little bit
too considered for my liking from time to time. But
if you're told right, judge alone, get cracking, let's clear

(05:53):
this backlog, wouldn't you subconscious say right, I will bugger it. Guilty,
you know, next case please. That kind of pressure to
clear the backlog may inform the decision you make, and
it may not be a big deal. Two years doesn't
sound like a big deal. Two years or more in
prison by the time you take into account discounts and

(06:15):
troubled backgrounds and the like, you'd probably only get nine months.
But nine months in prison. You say it like it's nothing.
But what would nine months in prison do to you
and me? Would be absolutely devastating if you were innocent.
So intuitively, yes, save the juries for the big ticket crimes,

(06:39):
the high court offenses. At the same time, you don't
want to see people sent to prison, even if it
is just for a six month term for a crime
they didn't commit.

Speaker 1 (06:54):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.