A TOUCHING APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume LVIII, Issue 9690, 11 May 1923, Page 6

A TOUCHING APPEAL.

SUPPRESSION OF NAMES BY COURT.

COUNSEL’S PLEA SUCCESSFUL.

Those whose misfortune it is to have to follow the Police Court proceedings from day to day frequently have forced upon their notice the ardent desire of some offenders to avoid publicity, and their counsel, accordingly, make moving appeals, successful or otherwise as the case may lie, that the names shall bo suppressed. There is, frequently, a good deal to say in favor of the appeal, but there are always two very solict objections to be offered against it. first, that publicity is a very powerful deterrent of crime, and, secondly, that the distinction created by suppressing one name and allowing' others to be published, is apt to create a bad impression in the public mind. In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, nvo men pleaded guilty to being on licensed premises after hours. They were represented by Mr. L. T. Burnard, who applied for an order that the names should be suppressed. They were, he said, two well-known and respectable men who had gone on to the premises of t ln> Masonic Hotel for the purpose of seeing a man. The man had not been there—as a matter of fact lie was staying at the Gisborne Hotel—and. in order to solace themselves, the men had asked the barman m charge of the private bar, for drinks, which bad been supplied. The action was a foolish one, certainly, but not. <i very serious offence. His Worship would concede that any publicity in connection with liquor cases of this kind often created a wholly exaggerated impression of the seriousness of tho matter in the minds of the person’s employers. People in public positions, or in the employ of large institutions, might suffer as the result of publicity, in a matter out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. It was, moreover, the defendants’ first offence, and that entitled them to consideration.

Mr. E. C. Levvey, S.M., who was on the Bench, said that he did not like making orders for the suppression of names, and, as a rule, refused such applications. In this case, however, the men were first offenders, and it was customary to extend to first offenders tiie privilege of having their names suppressed. The defendants would be given the benefit of this custom, and an order made for the suppression of the names.

It happened that there were a number of other men charged with exactly the same offence, who pleaded guilty in file same way. also dealt with by the Court yesterday. No order, however. was made for the suppression of the names of these men. It is, admittedly. true that no application was made, but it remains equally true that, for the same offence, committed under exactly the same circumstances, one set of men were punished by being subjected to unrestricted'publicity, and another set' of men were not.