The Press SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1975. Secret “justice"

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33941, 6 September 1975, Page 14

The Press SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1975. Secret “justice"

The best intentions do not justify ill-conceived changes in the administration of the law. The Government is pressing ahead with its proposals to suppress the names of accused persons until they have been convicted in court. The Government has put aside the arguments that the public has a right to know what is happening tn the courts, that it should know grounds on which an acquittal is made, and know' who has been acquitted. Although these matters may be as important as details of convictions, the Government has gone ahead with a plan that will enable rumour to run in the place of conscientious reporting.

The Statutes Revision Committee rejected too lightly, as special pleading, submissions from many sectors of the newspaper industry that the essential role of journalists as representatives of the public's interest in the courts would be seriously weakened by the change. Few newspapers have staff or space to report all matters before the courts; most, including " The Press attempt to keep the public informed of the progress of the outcome of more serious or important cases.

The new law will prevent publication of the names of persons acquitted and of any detail which might identify them. It will make almost unintelligible reports of many protracted proceedings in which an accused person pleads not guilty. A little reflection on cases which have attracted a good deal of public interest — the Sutch espionage trial, for example — should make it clear that sensible reporting would have been impossible if the identity of the accused could not have been published. Dr Sutch's acquittal would have meant that the public would never have known for sure who had been charged. The riot of speculation can be imagined. The court, of course, might exercise its discretion to allow publication of the name

A law’ that prevents society from knowing who has been before the court, and acquitted, is bad enough. A law that prevents society from knowing who is held in custody awaiting trial is a dangerous one. At least an arrested person can have the court make known his identity if he feels that is necessary. This proviso is almost the only redeeming element in the proposal. As the law’ stands, the courts have power to suppress the names of accused people or of witnesses where this seems desirable. The power is used. The process is to be upset in what are assumed to be the interests of the very small number of people who come before the courts and are eventually acquitted. No evidence has been offered by the Government to show that publication of the identity of a person w’ho is subsequently acquitted is damaging enough to justify a radical change of the publics right to see that justice is administered openly and fairly.