SUPPRESSION OF NAMES

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 175, 14 October 1927, Page 8

SUPPRESSION OF NAMES

WHETHER or not justices of the peace have the power to suppress the publication of names in Police Court cases—a point now being debated—a considerable amount of public opinion will be in agreement with the Senior Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr. E. C. Cutten. This experienced magistrate, while declining to comment on the powers of justices, says bluntly that too much is being made of the suppression of names. It is well known that in regard to many offences the fear of disgrace attendant on publicity is a much greater deterrent than the thought of consequences which entail only a fine, or a few days’ imprisonment at the most. To remove this fear is to take away one of the most potent safeguards that exist in the interests of public propriety, and it is to be regretted that too many magistrates too often have been persuaded to disregard this fact; hence the timely comment of Mr. Cntten. There are occasions, of course, in which it is quite proper to order the suppression of names. First offenders, whose temporary lapses have not flagrantly violated the laws of society and who would be so prejudiced by publicity that their employment would be jeopardised and their opportunities for a good reformation at “the stool of repentance” be discounted, should not be punished by public disgrace as well as by being dealt with in a court of law; and this applies with added force where the stigma would necessarily be shared by unoffending relatives. There are cases, also, in which there is grave doubt of guilt, arid in such circumstances it would be quite unfair to run the risk of humiliating a possibly innocent person. But in many other instances, where an offender has shown an utter disregard of public safety or of public morality, or has been guilty of a breach of public or private trust, he should not escape the consequences of publicity. The Legislature has seen fit to put the power of suppression into the hands of magistrates, and the consideration of these things and the exercise of personal discretion is with them. But why should the power be limited to stipendiary magistrates? If justices of the peace have power to hear and try cases, they should he given the right to suppress the publication of names or to refuse to suppress them. Otherwise, accused persons who appear before them will not receive the same justice as do those who appear before salaried magistrates.