SUPPRESSION OF NAMES

Hokitika Guardian, 20 July 1928, Page 4

SUPPRESSION OF NAMES

MAGISTRATE’S COMMENTS

CHRISTCHURCH, July 18

An explanation of some of the reasons which prompted Magistrates and Judges to suppress names of certain offenders in the law courts was given by Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., in his address on “ Probation ” to the Christchurch branch of the Howard League for Penal Reform last night. He said that the power given for suppression required to be exercised With discretion.

“ The section of the First Offenders’ Probation Act which gives power lor the suppression of names has given tho Courts more trouble and difficulty than any other section of the Act,” stated Mr Mosley. “ Speaking as a -Magistrate, I would not be without the section, which must be administered with discretion. Every offender thinks that his name should be suppressed, and every lawyer who appears for an offender is of the same opinion, and many are the specious arguments they put up in support of suck. “When the Court does not grant the application it is working on some principle. All Magistrates and Supreme Court Judges cannot be expected to think alike, for all are human. Personally, I think that the name should not be published where the offender is of tender age, under twenty-one years, or in exceptional circumstances, 'this is one of the rules I work on. xhe speaker continued that where probation was extended to an indii idual it might be necessary in the interests of such person to order suppression of his or her name. If the crime were of such a nature that in the public interest the name should not be suppressed, it would be aliened to be published. Even some lawyers did not know that the Court had no power to order suppression except in cases of offences punishable by imprisonment. Where the penalty was a fine only, or a fine with, an alternative of imprisonment, the name could not bo suppressed by law. “No general rule can be laid down for tlie guidance of Courts in the suppression of names,” stated Mr Mosley. “Each case must be treated on its merits. Publication is in some degree a method of punishment and- a measure of protection for the, public. The Courts are in existence for the. protection of the public, for the prevention of wrongdoing, and lor the reformation and redemption of tho offender. We hope in the end to strike at the very roots of criminality, and thus do away with a good many of tho Magistrates and Judges; hut I think that we will be needed for a good many years yet.” * ,'