Suppression of M.P.’s name lifted

Press, 19 June 1976, Page 3

Suppression of M.P.’s name lifted

Suppression of the name of John Gerald O’Brien, aged 51, the Labour member of Parliament charged in Christchurch with indecent assault on a youth of 17. was lifted in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, on the application of his counsel, Mr K. N. Hampton.

Before a crowded! [court, Mr Hampton said; that O’Brien’s decision to seek the lifting of; suppression of his name; was made because he; had “nothing to hide' from the public,” and to!; relieve the burden of!' suspicion on others. “O’Brien denies the charge and the matter will proceed to trial,” Mr Hamp- [ ton said. O’Brien — who did not appear yesterday — was I only now making the applii cation to lift suppression of ; his name because .he had been in no condition to rei ceive advice, or to instruct ; counsel on suppression or on any other matter, when he was first to have appeared, said Mr Hampton. On Tuesday evening, i O’Brien had been admitted Ito Calvary Hospital from the police cells because of the serious nature and extent of facial and head injuries, and I I “possible brain injuries,” suffered during an attack on 1 ■ him by one or more persons;' on Monday night. I Mr F. G. Paterson, 5.M.,5 acknowledged that yesterday; was the first occasion, O’Brien could have made ap-i plication to have suppress- 1, sion of his name lifted — an; application which was to his | [credit, the Magistrate said. [; Mr Hampton xaid that; [O’Brien was to have ap-[ peared on Wednesday, but; [had been unable to do so bel cause of his injuries — a' [medical certificate having!, 'been presented and the case;' remanded to June 23 — and , would be transferred to a Dunedin hospital for appro- , priate treatment when he was fit to travel. The news media have been advised that the case would be called yesterday but not that the defendant would 1 himself appear in court — [ “but that is what the media! l ] chose to publicise widely,”], Mr Hampton said. He was “astounded and 1 dismayed” at the irrespon-i sible attitude shown by the] 1 news media in connection; 1 with all aspects of the mat-; ter, he said. ;' The media were showing]' standards “seldom plumbed 1 in New Zealand until now.” [ Complaining of “mis-]' reporting” about what wasp to occur in court yesterday,[' Mr I lampton said: “The|l

: media were advised that the!' matter would be called, not'; that the defendant would:; appear yet in court, but that;, is wnat the media chose to I publicise widely, despite! what the Court was told onh Wednesday, and repeated) today, that he is not fit ton appear in court at this!; stage.” ‘ I. Mr Hampton said that one], [would have hoped that in . New Zealand, which prided, itself on its system of jus-i lice, a normal course could], have been followed and his], application made at the end;, of the seven-day remand!, period. “It was just seven days [ for the remand — the man!; had been seriously injured.;: It was not to be. In less] than 24 hours, the provisions of our law were swept! aside and made a mockery! of by the media, and have: continued to have been, in spite of what was said in this court only two days ago. “One wonders where the gentlemen of the media think trials are held — in courts, or in the newspapers lor on radio or on teleivsioi?” Mr Hampton said. ‘“Each seem to be trying to ,out-pursue the other — into the hospital room, to the hospital bed — and to outclamour the other. “There is no justice in: [this process followed by the] media,” he said. “It is not the way we I knew justice in the past and: lone would sincerely hope we; (will not know it like this in the future,” Mr Hampton said. For the prosecution, Inspector .1. M. Phelan said he i had nothing to say on the • matter beyond that police > inquiries were being made into the news media. The Magistrate said he did!' not propose to canvass thel' duties of the news media — that was a matter for the police inquiries. The order sought, lifting !automatic suppression of the defendant’s name, and made under section 6456, subsection 2, of the Criminal Justice Act, would be made. The Opposition spokesman [on justice, Dr A. M. Finlay, I was also critcal of the news .media yesterday, asserting! 'that the newspapers were using remarks he had made [to a Christchurch radio station as a pad from which toi : [launch “yet another editorial

'onslaught” on last year’s legislation regulating the publication of names in criminal cases. “It is remarkable that in 1 rushing to renew this cu-i riously concerted campaign, not one of the media paused: to reflect that my words — i and the use made of them — were totally unconnected with that legislation,” he said, speaking from Wellington. “They were spoken, quite I early in the morning, in re-i sponse to an approach by a radio station and as a comment on a broadcast news item read out to me. At that time, I had no personal knowledge of any charge having been made, and certainly no case had been called in court.” In those circumstances no newspaper or other news, medium would have dared to name any person, irrespec-, tive of the Criminal Justice I Amendment Act.