NAMES SUPPRESSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 215, 11 September 1925, Page 6

NAMES SUPPRESSED.

FIRST OFFENDER'S PRIVILEGE. MB. POYNTON DEFINES POLICY. A HUMANE PROVISION. An interesting statement on the vexed question of suppression of the names of first offenders in the reports of Police Court proceedings was made at the Court this morning by Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M. "After,an experiment of a year," said Mr. Poynton, "this Court has decided to continue the practice of suppressing the names of first offenders of all ages. For three years there was a limit up to the age of*twenty-one years, when this privilege ceased, but experience has shown that it would be in many cases a cruelty to refuse it to older persons. Men and women of sixty or more are just as deserving of consideration, and feel the exposure as much and perhaps more than an irresponsible youth or girl of twenty. They have perhaps a family, or a wider circle of friends tnan younger persons. If a man or woman has lived a long time in a community, blameless, and makes a false step that does not concern the public, he or she should not be unnecessarily humiliated. The Act is of humane intention, and its provisions are intended to apply to persons of all ages. "There are, however, cases in which the public should know the offender, and this class will not be given any protection. Not only their names, but their photographs, should be published in the public interest. Such cases are: Where an offence has often been repeated, as bookmakers well-known shoplifters, hoodlums, cheque passers, or where two or more persons combine to commit offences, j and do so; also gssaults on children, i unprovoked jtgsaults, or anything of a nature that the public has a right to i know about. I i "Applications are aften made for sup-; pression of names for by-law cases and others of a simple nature. This cannot be granted if the offence is not one punishable by imprisonment. For example, drunkenness is not one. A fine must be inflicted. But drunk and disorderly is an offence that can be, in the discretion of the Court, punished by imprisonment. It ' cannot do so in charges of breaches of prohibition orders, because a fine must ibe imposed. Anyone having a previous I offence against his name which is punishi able by imprisonment cannot get an, order for suppression. I I l "These remarks are necessary on ' account of the frequent application for suppression in trivial" offences. There is i a keen desire on the part of most ; offenders for suppression. This is a good sign. In the ca6e of an offender whose ; name is suppressed there is a strong inducement for him not to offend again. He cannot get the concession twice, and this must be a strong deterrent. j "The effects of the Act, being carefully administered, must be humane, just and deterrent."