POLICE CHARGES

Hokitika Guardian, 23 March 1926, Page 1

POLICE CHARGES

ARGUMENT ON SUPPRESSION OF NAMES. [by TKLI.GIUrU—PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, -March 22. “These two men have never been' in trouble before. Will your Worship order the suppression of their names?” asked Mr Dickson, who appealed for two men who wore fined B2 each at tlie Police Court tiiis morning for stealing four bottles of beer.

“ No. 1 will not suppress tliei: names,” said the Magistrate, Mr F, K. Hunt, emphatically.

-Mr Dickson: “These imm have never been in trouble before. 1 would like—”

Mr Hunt: ”1 won’t suppress tlieir names, so that’s the end of it.”

Mr Dickson: “ I insist on argil went.”

Air Hunt: “ Not now! You can argue as long as you like afterwards when wo come to the end of the list. All the argument in the' world won’t make any impression on me.”

Mr Dickson: “What’s that, your Worship? I submit that if you sfty that no argument that I place before

you can ’ Mr Hunt: “Not in this case. These men have pleaded guilty to stealing another man’s beer.” All- Dickson: “T insist upon arguing the matter at the end of the list, Sir.”

The matter was then stood down until all tho other cases had been disposed of, when tho case was re-opened

again. Mr Hunt said it was ridiculous. It was no form of punishment at all if the names of the offenders were suppressed. Every case depended upon the circumstances. In this ease, both the accused had pleaded guilty to the theft of beer. “ Well, I formally make application for the suppression of their names, as both my clients are first offenders. Secondly, they are married men, and the publicity is going to punish them far greater than the fine imposed.” said Mr Dickson. Mr Hunt: “Yes, of course it will!”

Mr Dickson : I suggest that it would be greater in proportion to the offences. I also suggest to your Worship that the whole law is favourable towards the suppression of offender’s names. This Court has, in the past, been in the habit of suppressing the names of first offenders. That has been the attitude adopted by one Magistrate.”

Mr Hunt: " Yes, and this is tho attitude of another Magistrate.” Counsel then pointed out that there was a clause in the Probation Act which stated that a Magistrate could exercise his discretion in suppressing the names of first offenders. I also suggest that the press should have no influence upon what the Court decides. On the qestion of tho suppression of names, the press of Auckland has taken an unfair and an unreasonable attitude, and it is trying to dictate to the Court. We hear a great howl from the press because a Magistrate suppresses a name.” Mr Hunt: “Well, T refuse your application in this case. Where the circumstances, in my opinion warrant me suppressing a name, I will do it-, but not in these eases. The accused pleaded guilty. In such eases as these publicity is the only punishment. The application is refused.”