OUR HUSH-HUSH MAGISTRATES

NZ Truth, Issue 1146, 17 November 1927, Page 8

OUR HUSH-HUSH MAGISTRATES

How Offenders Escape Penalty Through Suppression

CRIME HIDDEN BY VEIL OF SECRECY

Persistent and generally justified protests against the practice of some magistrates m suppressing names of offenders are as frequent nowadays as they are ineffective.

VTOTWITHSTANDING the undoubtly ed fact that — more often than not — it Is contrary to the public Interest and generally inconsistent with the whole judicial code, certain magistrates persist m a habit that has little to commend it. ■ It is true that m some courts a rigid stand 'has been taken against suppression, but this is the exception to what is fast becoming the rule. In . contrast, there are cases where magistrates require little or no excuse to conceal the identity of offenders against the law and names have actually been suppressed without any application to that effect being made. Where is it all going to end? Is the Dominion slowly moving' towards that stage when the courts will become entirely secret institutions, where the freedom of the press will become but a memory of the past, where publicity —the greatest of all deterrents to crime — will be unknown, and whene justice, as it is at present known, will be but a mockery? The suggestion may appear absurd* but so great have been the retrograde steps of recent years that the future is 1 dimmed m obscurity.

Some years ago a great outcry was raised m Auckland because - a ■well-known police officer secured a divorce outside regular ooiirt hours, It belnff alleged that officials had connived to exclude the press and avoid publicity

Compared with things that happen nowadays, this case was trivial.

Dishonest men are turned loose from the courts with their identity hidden and allowed to prey unknown upon the business community; criminal cases have been tried practically In secret, and prisoners, confined for serious offences, have been .released . after serving comparatively short sentences.

And with very, very few exceptions has it been shown that the practice is m the interests either of the public or

the offender;

Before the courts were entrusted with these frequently abused powers there was little room for complaint at the publicity given to cases. It would be difficult, indeed, to quote a single instance of the press, as a whole, failing to realize a just discretion^ If there -are isolated instances of Indiscretion on the part of papers, it is certain that it cannot be said that the press has been influenced by the position held by a person before the court. Can the same thing be said ( of the so-called discretion shown m some, of the courts? Think of the standing of the prisoners who have recently been- released from gaol, and think, also, of cases m which names have been suppressed. And then read of a case which was j heard m one of the provincial courts within the past fortnight. ' One of the best-known men In the town was proceeded against by hla wife for maintenance.. Allegations and counter-allegations were made, the hearing lasted for some hours and decision was duly reached. The man's name cannot be given, the evidence cannot be published and the result cannot bo divulged. Why?

Because the learned magistrate issued an order suppressing the names of the parties, the evldenoo and the result.

In short, the press was forbidden to publish the case at all; this man and his wife were given a protection to which they had no color of rlgrht and which is greater, perhaps, .than has ever been given m any other case heard m the Dominion. j Another point. Most magistrates, when they suppress names or evidence, give their reasons, but not so m this case. The case was heard m open court. Subsequently the magistrate and counsel discussed something or other m chambers and from the seclusion of his sanctuary his worship sent forth his edict. It is possible that there was some

reason for the magistrate's decision but, if so, surely the public is entitled to know why such glaringly preferential treatment was given to a man who happens to hold an important position m the town. Defendant In the notion Is a justice of the pence— Inoldentally, his appointment oaused a remarkable degree of oritiolßm— and his " wife is the daughter of another equally prominent citizen. Rightly or -wrongly, the public will hold this to be the reason why the case was suppressed — and, of course, the suppression of the case did not prevent the public from knowing that it wa.3 heard and hearing- the decision It bo happens that the case had beer ! "m the wind" for a long time and a; is so often the case many absurd statements were circulated. Publication of the evidence m the case would have scotched many of these rumors, but the very fact of suppression tends to give credence to much that is only gossip. If the truth be known, the partie? have- probably suffered more from the veil of secrecy than they would had the whole truth been revealed.

But that Is their ' loss. What of the || public? The clr- || cum.stances may [I have been entirely I different. In this case the husband was proceeded against on grounds unknown. He Is a business man. Supposing, for the sake of argument, he had been guilty of such conduct as to make It Impossible for his wife to live with him. Is the public not entitled to know that a man m a responsible position Is not what he appears on the surface? He may have been guilty of trivial or serious offences against •society — and, if so, the public is entitled to know of it. It may be argued that suppression m such a' case would not be granted, but

with

names and

details being suppressed almost daily without rhyme or reason who is to say what would be done and what wouldn't? And, m any case, it does not alter the principle of the matter. If the proceedings m this case were based on the usual domestic misunderstandings, publication could not have done any more serious harm than it does m other cases. If the cause of the action were more serious, then the public, for its own protection, had every right to know what the allegations were, what evidence there was to support the allegations and what view was taken by thp presiding magistrate. As it is, all the public knows about the case is the gossip of the street corner. And if gossip is prone to exaggerate — then the responsibility must rest on the shoulders of those who sought 6ecret justice and upon the magistrate who saw fit to make such a drastic order. The whole principle of suppression is rotten to the. core and the sooner the courts are shorn of a discretionary power which is so greatly abused the better.