POLICE COURTS AND THE PRESS

Evening Star, Issue 21811, 29 August 1934, Page 13

POLICE COURTS AND THE PRESS

* THE SUPPRESSION Of NAMES DISCUSSION BY JUSTICES OF PEACE How often does one hear of a person who would rather be blackmailed than have the matter ventilated in a court of justice? This question was asked by Mr E, S. Clarke at the annual meeting of the Otago Justices of the Peace Association last night when protesting against the publication by the Press of the name of a person who has been found not guilty. It was used as a weapon against tne stigma attached to an appearance before a magistrate, and was introduced by the following proposal, to be referred to the incoming _ committee of the association for consideration and report to a future meeting:— " That in the opinion of the association it slmuld be made an offence for any person to published the name of a defendant unless and until such person has been proved guilty of the charges made against him.” The Chairman (Mr G. W. Watts) suggested that the proposal should be submitted to the annual conference of the Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Association in the form of a remit.

Mr Clarke agreed to this course being adopted, and said ho thought the matter was one for consideration oven though he did not expect it would immediately be acted upon by the association, Nevertheless, it merited thought, and he would like the incoming committee to take it up. In some cases, magistrates ordered tbo name of a person not to be published, this being done to give him a chance to make good, which opportunity would often not be made use of if the name were published, “ I have often thought that an injustice is done to persons charged before a court with an offence that is not proved,” concluded Mr Clarke, who said that people who were found not guilty suffered through the publicity given in the Rress, The prohibition of the publication of an offender’s name and a paragraph in a local paper questioning the presiding justices’ right to take such a step was introduced by Mr Wright. The case had been dealt with on Boxing Day, and he wished it to be made known that justices of the peace were empowered to suppress offenders’ names at their discretion.

At this stage several members asked if the meeting was in committee. Mr F. G. Gumming: “I think the Press ought to be allowed to publish the association’s views on this question, and give the public the correct position with regard to th© suppression of names.” Mr Stratton supported Mr Wright after which the discussion lapsed.