Crime and Publicity.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17433, 19 April 1922, Page 6

Crime and Publicity.

The laW wJiich empowers Magistrates, in the exercise of their discretion, to forbid the publication by newspapers of the names of persons brought before the Court was the subject of some remarks by Mr J. S. Evans, fe.M., at Wellington last week. This was the first occasion, -we believe, on which a Magistrate lias deemed it desirable to state at length the principles' on which he proposed to carry ; out.the intention of the Act, and as hitherto the Magistrates in aome instances liuve exorcised the power placed in their hands in a somewhat "arbitrary manner, Mr Evans's statement assumes an added importance, since it u ill not improbably be taken as a guido by which other Magistrates will apply the law. Mr. Evans commented at the outset ou the attitude adopted by certain of his brother Magistrates, some "of whom, ho said, had Stated that they would not apply this provision of the law at all, while others had jaid that thev would apply it only j ! to* persons* under a certain'age. The I,view 'he Vnit:elf;/took was\tHat. the Jaw

was part of the Statutes of the country, that it must be applied as every other Statute musf he, and that any man entitled to the benefit of it had a right to ask to have it applied to his particular case. "There are two " things,-'' continued Mr Evans, and two things "only, which should always "guide the Magistrate in administer"ing that part of. our law. One is, " that publicity is part of the punish- " inent for wrongdoing; the other k, " that the public are entitled as of " right to have reasonable warning of " a certain class of wrongdoers who may "victimise the public in the manner " set out in the particular charge. So " far as I can see, the public has no " other right to the publication of a " name. It has no right as a matter "for local gossip or general scandal. Its " right is to bo protected, and it has "no other right." Speaking for ourselves, we may say at once that as we do not agree with the principle of the provision referred to, so we also disagree with Mr Evans's exposition of the principles on which he proposes to apply it. His statement discloses one or two examples of fallacious or illogical argument. Thus, he lays down two hard-and-fast rules for the guidance of Magistrates in administering a provision of the law which at the outset of his statement he admitted had to be decided according to the circumstances of each case. In the second place he falls into the error, not uncommonly perpetrated by occupants of the Bench, of regarding the newspaper Press as part of. the machinery of the Court, "to be used or not used for the punish-' ment of offenders as the Magistrate may choose. "Publicity," he says, "is " part of the punishment for wrong- " doing," but in his opinion, and in that of the Legislature, it is a part which may be inflicted or withheld at the discretion of the Magistrate. But it is no part of the mission fir purpose' of a newspaper to act as an agent of the law. Its business is the publication of all the news that it considers desirable to print for the benefit of its readers to the fullest extent consistent with obedience to the law. With the Press as an instrument of publicity the Magistracy should have no concern. Another of Mr Evans's fallacies is that the pifblic has no ether right to Hie publication of the name of an offender than "the protection of the warning thus conveyed .op certain classes of wrongdoers who may victimise the public. The trial of such individuals is, however, held jin open Court, and their names ,J become known to any person who has leisure to - sit .and listen to the proceedings. *lf,it is improper for the rest of the puhlic to he. afforded similar knowledge, the Courts should logically be closed to the public and the cases "heard .in camera. That would, of course, not be permitted, yet the law authorises the Magistrates at their discretion to prevent the general- public from being presented with a complete account of cases heard in open Court. The publicj said Mr Evans, "has a right to be "protected and no other right," and because the, case' , which formed the basis of his remarks was cue in which a first offender had stolen from his employer, who was willing to take him back, the Magistrate held that as the matter was solely between an employer and an employee, and the former 'was prepared to take the risk of being again ivictimised, "it does not concern the "public in the least." But what about other employers?, Had not they as much .right a 8 any Court-room lounger to know the man's name, for their own projection ? The Wellington Magistrate's reasoning only emphasises the fact tliat a law which attacks the liberty of ,the Press is inherently had, no matter how humanitarian its purpose may he.