New law to tackle threats to juries

Suspected jury tampering by organised crime groups has prompted new legislation to enable judges to hear such cases on their own.

The imminent law change is the result of a series of gang cases in Auckland in which tampering may have occurred.

The Herald on Sunday has confirmed that in one drug case a gang member was acquitted after the jury asked the judge what protection they would get if they convicted. They were told there was none.

Cases in which jury intimidation has arisen include those involving the Headhunters, Hells Angels and Mongrel Mob gangs.

The police, Law Commission and Auckland Crown Solicitor Simon Moore have urged changes to the law to deal with such situations but the New Zealand Law Society is opposed to giving judges the power to sit alone.

The Criminal Procedure Bill provides for trial by judge alone where the judge has reasonable grounds to believe intimidation has occurred or may occur.

The bill was introduced to Parliament by Justice Minister Phil Goff and is now with a select committee.

Mr Moore said it was difficult to know how prevalent jury tampering was. "In Auckland particularly there have been quite a number of instances," he said.

"Sometimes we find out about attempts to tamper only after a trial has started. We invite the judge to discharge the jury and start again. That is probably exactly what those doing the tampering want."

The other option is sequestration which involves separating juries from the outside world, including from their families, for the course of the trial. Mr Moore said this was unrealistic and "inevitably raises resentment among those sequestered, which doesn't bode well for an effective criminal justice system".

Sequestration could also unnerve jurors, Mr Moore said. "I'm absolutely sure that was the basis for an acquittal we had in a case where there was sequestration."

Though not ideal, judge-alone trials were sensible, practical and cost effective.

But in its submission on the bill, the law society said there was no evidence intimidation occurred to such an extent as to warrant changes in the bill which were contrary to the right to trial by jury provided for in the Bill of Rights Act.

Mr Goff acknowledged evidence was anecdotal but said he was convinced intimidation did occur.

Trial by judge alone still maintained the rights of the accused and might eliminate instances in which a juror might feel intimidated simply because of who the accused was.

People had told him of their fellow jurors being intimidated in this way, Mr Goff said. "They had felt intimidated by the nature of the person before the court and what might happen to them if they [returned] a guilty verdict and they therefore weren't prepared to do it."

- herald on sunday