‘AGAINST BRITISH JUSTICE'

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 319, 2 April 1928, Page 9

‘AGAINST BRITISH JUSTICE '

Magistrate’s Reply to Criticism

WHY NAMES ARE SUPPRESSED

THE public feels strongly on the subject; but criticism, unless thoroughly justified, is a pity; for if it has any effect, that effect must he to induce magistrates not to use their discretion in accordance with what is brought before them in Court, hut in accordance with the views of the public, which is against the principles of English justice.”

observations were made by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., at the Police Court this morning when he explained his toward the question of suppressing the publication of names. Last Monday, Mr. Cutten suppressed the name of a young medical man who was charged with being intoxicated wTiile in control of a motorThis discretionary act was severely criticised by a section of the public,

and when two men, charged with being intoxicated while in control of motor-cars appeared at the Police Ccurt. to-day, the magistrate defended himself against the criticism of his action last Monday. The motorists who appeared to-day were John William Kinder, an engineer, aged 40, and Albert Osborne, motor engineer, aged 32. Sub-Inspector McCarthy said that Kinder had been found by a constable in Broad wav. Newmarket, on Saturday. He was under the influence of liquor, and was stopped from driving away by the constable. Mr. Sellars, who appeared for accused, entered a plea of guilty. REASONS FOR SUPPRESSION In asking for suppression of name, he said that this was the first time Kinder had been in court. He was an engineer in good position, and was a descendant of people who had held good positions. In addition his mother was not well, and his sons were attending a good school. The case, too, was admitted to be mild. Osborne, w r ho was represented by Mr. J. ,T. Sullivan, also pleaded guilty. Sub-Inspector McCarthy said the cases were practically the same, and when accused was adjusting some engine trouble, it was noticed that he had had liquor. In applying for suppression, Mr. Sullivan said that accused, a motor engineer, would probably lose his position if liis name were published. “He is one of nature’s gentlemen,” added Mr. Sullivan. MAGISTRATE’S ATTITUDE The magistrate said that the application ■ seemed to be on the same footing in each case. Neither of the defendants was drunk, but they, had had enough to make them unfit to have charge of cars. “Both are engineers in a good position in life,” said Mr. Cutten, and it is suggested that the publication of their names would he a matter of distress to them and the people connected with them. It was further suggested that one of the men might lose his position as a motor engineer.

j “The exercise of discretion to suppress a name is a delicate matter,” continued Mr. Cutten. “I suppressed the name of a young medical man last week, and it led to a great deal of criticism. “I d.o not think that names should be suppressed unless the effect of publication is going to have some serious results.” “In the case last week, a young professional man made a slip, and the publication of his name might have led to the ruin of his career. I thought in that case suppression was justified. “In the present two cases the chief consideration in the applications is the feelings of the dependants. I cannot imagine that when the facts are published, showing such a mild case, that the engineer will lose his position.” The applications were refused and both offenders were each fined £5.