THE Hauraki Plains Gazette With which is incorporated THE OHINEMURI GAZETTE. Motto Public Service. MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, & FRIDAY. FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1927. SUPPRESSION OF NAMES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5161, 5 August 1927, Page 2

THE Hauraki Plains Gazette With which is incorporated THE OHINEMURI GAZETTE. Motto Public Service. MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, & FRIDAY. FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1927. SUPPRESSION OF NAMES.

We -have frequently had occasion to refer in these columns to the subject of suppressing names, particularly in reporting court proceedings, and regret that we are* once again compelled to place the position before our readers. By an unwritten agreement amongst newspaper editors the practice is not to publish the name of a first offender for drunkenness. The reason for the concession is obvious. In law a. “first offender” is one- who has not been convicted ’of drunkenness during the previous period of six months ; in newspaper practice, so far as we are aware, that technical difference does not exist. Again except, under very exceptional circumstances, we do not publish the names of juvenile offenders (apart altogether from the regulations of the Juvenile Court). Nor do we publish the names of females against whom offences have been committed. Here, again, the reason for' the benevolent practice requires no explanation, but within the limitations we have cited the general rule is to publisl\ the names of all offenders who come before the court. We would like) to remark here that the 1 editor derives no pleasure from publishing these names; indeed, the duty is one of daily anxiety and frequent distress. Pressure is constantly being brought to bear with a view to having particular names suppressed, and quite frequently bribes have been offered, not only to the editor but to the- reporter to keep the names out of print. Experience ha*, -however, clearly shown that there is only one safe rule to follow - to publish the names of all offenders, except in the special cases we have quoted. Family considerations furnish the most fruitful source of concern to conscientious editors. Tr.at concern was very largely alleviated by the authority which was some time ago given to magistrates to order the suppression of names in particular cases. Thus, where it could be shown that palliating circumstances largely condoned an offence 1 , and that undue penalties or grief might follow publicity, magistrates were empower ed to exercise a veto over the freedom of the press. Generally speaking, we think that this arbitrary power with which the court is invested is welcomed by the newspaper editors; who are automatically relieved of a very anxious responsibility. But the effect of that authority was to establish a new phase of newspaper ethics. The position no w is that where magistrates- decline to make an order tor the suppression of a name, the refusal of the -court is accepted by the Press as an inferential decision that there is no justification for withholding the name of air offender from tho public. So that in a very material degree the responsibility is removed from the editorial office and the sanction of publicity is a-.sitn.sd by the court. Again, magistrates have frequently remarked that part of the punishment is in the publicity given by the Press. If ptjople will deliberately break the law of the lan I they must expect to suffer. In dealing with the recent cases the magistrate remarked in the court that the fine was large because defendants were the type of men who “told licensees to break the law,” and if such men did not appear on the premises there would be far less breaches committed. The publication given is without doubt a great deterrent to crime, and that being so it behoves us to firmly keep to the rules of this paper and publish the- proceedings without fear or fa.vour, and make our columns an honest record of such

court proceedings. Our duty is plain, and wi dare not undertake the responsibility of considering each case on its merits and determining whose name shall not be published. Such a course would involve us in endless trouble, and the editor’s position would become untenable. We have either to publish all the names which’ come within the scope of our duty or abandon the reporting of court proceedings altogether. If the latter course were adopted we feel sure it would not promote the public welfare. Our sympathies are with those who are made to suffer through the actions of others, but we cannot for one moment allow such sympathies to interfere with what is, plainly our duty.