SUPPRESSING NAMES OF ACCUSED.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 September 1922, Page 4

SUPPRESSING NAMES OF ACCUSED.

The power conferred on magistrates to ■order the suppression of the names of accused persons is one that obviously should only be used in certain exceptional cases fully justified by circumstances and the nature of the offence. The fact that this discretionary power was one of the provisions of the First Offenders’ Probation Act would seem to imply that it was only intended to be exercised in minor lapses where publicity would be a greater punishment than the offence warranted. Without doubt the legislature was actuated by merciful intentions in giving such a power, but it would seem it is open to abuse by being exercised in the case of serious criminal offences. Recently in Taranaki an order was made for the suppression of the identity of a man charged with misappropriation of his employer’s money, while at Christchurch a similar order was made in the case of a young woman charged with breaking and entering and vagrancy. These two cases are mentioned. as examples relating to both sexes and as illustrating offences that, it is only reasonable to assume, could not have been intended to come within the provision of the Act. It will be a serious blow to the cause of. justice if this power is not most carefully exercised, for, as is well known, it is the publicity given to offenders that is part of the penalty they have to pay for committing crimes. It may almost be claimed that if those who commit crimes are shielded from publicity, one of the strong deterrents will be removed. Magistrates are as liable to err as other people, but it seems quite certain that if the discretionary power referred to is further abused there will be an outcry for the repeal of the provision in the Act. The Press has a duty to the public that no magistrate should interfere with except in the event of such special circumstances as fully justify withholding the names of accused persons.