‘NOT GUILTY’ (ANON.)

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33819, 16 April 1975, Page 1

‘NOT GUILTY’ (ANON.)

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, April 15. Injustice and embarrassment were less likely to be caused to innocent people if their names were suppressed when they appeared in court on criminal charges, the Minister of Justice (Dr Finlay) said today.

I He was being interviewed j I about a proposed amendment to the law which |i ! would prevent the publica-l )tion of an accused person’s I < 'name until a conviction had; I been entered or the court) 1 i made, an order permitting 1 | publication. |i Dr Finlay said the amend-ii ;ment had b.een decided by i I the Government caucus rath- I ;er than by Parliament’s Stat- ; ; utes Revision Committee it- r self. It was felt that such a i move would give innocent < people a better chance to - clear their names. ii Dr Finlay said that if organisations such as the Law I Society, or newspaper < proprietors wished to make i representations on the t amendment he would be bound to pass on the request t to the Government. He had < had no such requests. < The amendment had been < .proposed when the com-t mittee was considering the II ] Criminal Justice Amendment): '(No 2) Bill, which contains ad

I provision prohibiting the i I publication of the names of] |children under 16 involved) |in sex cases. A general dis-! Icussion had ensued. i Although the Howard (League and two Victoria i University law lecturers had )made submissions on general i suppression, no public discussion had taken place. But the hearing was in public) and all submissions were reportable. Dr Finlay said he was not aware of any precise precedent for taking such action — “But we used to delight jin innovating.” In Europe the press usually adopted a voluntary "selfdenying ordinance” and did] not' publish the names of those acquitted. Asked whether he did not think the reporting of court cases where names were suppressed would prove difficult because nothing (that could lead to identifying a person could be | used, Dr Finlay replied: “It 'would call for more delicacy!

:i in reporting criminal trials, ’I but I don’t think it would be 11 impossible.” •; Dr Finlay said he was convinced that people ac--1 quitted of a charge had [ suffered because their names l were published: there was I always the consequence of “Where there’s smoke '■ there's fire." ) Dr Finlay said the Sutch case had no bearing on the amendment. Another point in favour of suppressing names was the I considerable variability between centres of court cases being reported. A person appearing in court in Christ|l church probably had a great•ler chance of having his I name published than one appearing in Auckland, because of the amount of . space newspapers devoted to . court cases. Also, a considerable vari- ■ ation was found in the ap- ■ proaches or magistrates making orders for suppression of names.