|
Law
Jury and justice
|
| The Star newspaper recently published some articles and interviews on the usefulness of the jury system which was abolished a few years ago. I must say that much of what was said was based on personal feelings on the subject. Perhaps my experience will help to understand why I was against the abolition of the jury. Not only that, I have always been for its extension to serious crime. The recent Michael Jackson trial only served to highlight its importance to a prisoner innocent of the charges made against him.. ************ IN THIS COUNTRY country trial by jury was confined to the trial of cases involving the death penalty. But that system was abandoned mainly on the mean ground of expense and the saving of time wasting procedures demanded by the selection of the jury, a sure sign of the creeping commercialization of the legal process. This was a grave injustice because the jury system not only democratises the law and humanises it, but it protects the public from judges who are strangers to the life and circumstances of the accused and tend to lean on the police. Judges ( I speak of white judges of course) tended to believe everything the police say in the witness box. Thompson, a chief justice, was notorious in this respect. His famous remark was, "You can tell me what you like but I will believe you when the cow jumps over the moon" The jury do not easily swallow oral evidence of policemen. It is a popular myth that skilful advocacy, an over powering persuasiveness, sways the jury in favour of the accused, a prejudice largely cultivated by Hollywood court room scenes. The truth is that our juries were selected from lists made up of middle and lower income English educated; these tended to hang on every word uttered by the judge in his final summing up to the jury and who, being English, had the superior advantage of colour. Justice was prejudiced against the prisoner in the dock. Even the persuasiveness of the very rare David Marshall with its flavour of humility would have counted for nothing if the judge had not been sympathetic to his client. And David Marshall was rare and special. He spoke the jury’s language which he learnt during the years of the 1929 slump when he was a humble salesman trying to crack the impossible - selling fans and refrigerators. I have done many murder cases. One can sum up that generally there is agreement between judge and jury that there should be an acquittal or a reduction of the charge to manslaughter. But occasionally the jury rebels and frees the man in the dock. This |
| is
when the jury has a hunch that the police case is rotten for some reason
or other, a sixth sense lacking in the judge, cushioned by his more affluent
circumstances. I remember a case in Singapore when a police officer
(with a double King’s police medal) was highly praised by the English judge
but the jury was suspicious and acquitted the accused to the fury of the
judge, who made a dramatic exit from the court room after the verdict. It
was due to Sir John Whyatt, just appointed chief justice of
Singapore who had freshly come from Kenya and knew all
about trumped up charges against “Mau Mau” suspects that this same police
officer, a most “truthful officer” to the White judges, was to be exposed
as a falsifier of evidence. But the jury does not like it when they see obvious unfairness displayed by the trial judge. I was once asked by an odd job labourer to defend his son accused of murder. The case looked bad. In his dying statement the deceased, a secret society gangster, told the police that the man who stabbed him was W of PA. He further added the information that his attacker was slightly more than 5 feet tall. It looked a bad case. When, during the prison interview, the boy told me that he was at the cinema (50 cents a ticket) with his girl friend that night of the stabbing but could now remember what film he saw, my doubts about his innocence increased. My pessimism grew to catastrophic proportions when I learnt that the trial was to be before an expatriate judge well known for being pro-prosecution and who, when he was a public prosecutor, took an illegal part in commando raids on suspected communist hideouts. He would of course assume that my unemployed Chinese youth with little education must be a gangster and murderer. The case took a surprising turn. A senior officer gave evidence that he had done his usual rounds, which included a visit to the victim in the hospital. The man was comfortable when he saw him and was not in pain. He had asked whether the man knew who stabbed him but he had replied that it was too dark for him to make out his assailant. This evidence knocked out the "dying statement" taken by a junior inspector. Even though I was familiar with the pugnacious habits of the uncouth judge, he shocked me (and the jury too I am sure) when he told the officer that he had no right to be visiting the man in hospital as he was not the investigating officer; it was not proper and he would report him to the CPO. I thought this grossly unfair to the senior officer and stood up for him which led to a heated argument between me and the bench who said he would report me to the Bar committee. But being aware of his unpopularity he added ruefully, "But they will throw my complaint into the waste basket, I know;” which amused the jury hugely. I do not of course entirely blame the judge for being 100% sure that my client was a secret society killer as he had the investigation papers on his desk. He must have been convinced that the inspector had been bribed, not knowing that my client’s father was an odd job man, who could not afford to pay me anything.. But the jury saw, as I did, that my client was a little educated, dim witted and a mouse of a man who one hardly imagined could kill a fly. They could also tell that the inspector was a man of integrity who was not out to score points by getting someone hanged. They didn’t like the bullying by the judge one bit and acquitted my boy. Some six months later I met the same senior officer who told me that the police now had in their hands the real killer, a member of a secret society who also had the |
| same surname
and was also of the same height and lived also
in the same street as my accused. I can tell you that the police were
as grateful to the jury as I and my client were But even in this case the judge factor was important. Local juries do not give perverse verdicts but they will acquit where they are sympathetic and when honest guidance is given by the judge. In this case the hanging judge for all his hectoring remembered his duty and told the jury that if the dying statement was out there was very little evidence. But he added that didn’t like the alibi one bit. This story taught me a lesson. Years later I met a classmate of mine who told me he couldn’t remember s single film he saw. He used to go to the cinema once a week. Too many for me, he complained So my client was telling the truth after all!# |
|
Koay Jetty - 25 years
A Photo Essay
An exhibition of blackand white photographs charting the historyof the historic Koay Jetty of Penang by Dr Ooi Cheng Ghee Dr Cheng Ghee, an associate member of the Royal Societyof Great Britain, has photographed in black and white since 1969. He has exhinbited in Malaysia and Singapore This exhibition opens at the Sri Mutiara Gallery, Armenian Street, Penang at 6 pm, Saturday 1st April 2006 with poetry, music and refreshments. Contact: Koay Soo Kau Tel. 04 262 0167 Exhibition will run from 1 to 10 April
|
| _____ INDEX Point to the article
that you want to read, and CLICK
Index page Baba talk China, 1421 Good
food Jungle war (4)
Penang's Trams |
| ______________________ The Penang File Issue 45 |