SUPPRESSION

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 1 November 1924, Page 5

SUPPRESSION

OF OFFENDERS’ NAMES. A MARKED DIFFERENCE. SHOULD THEY BE PUBLISHED. (By Telegraph.—'Special to the Star.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 31. vjt m ' ai 'ked difference. in procedure by different Christchurch magistrates in legard to the suppression of juvenile offenders names was noted by Mr. Armstrong in a question to the Minister of Justice to-day. He pointed blit that when two youths of 16 years of age were convicted of converting bicycles to their own use an application for the suppression of the names was refused, but in another case before a different magistrate a man of 20, who, he understood, was not a first offender, had’ his name suppressed by older of the -court. , Air. Armstrong suggested that the Minister might secure a .somewhat more equitable standard for magistrates. Hon. C. J. Parr replied that lie had no information except that contained in the newspapers. It. would be improper for a Minister to express an opinion on a magistrate’s sentence. Hie suppression, or otherwise, of offenders’ names wa,s entirely within the magistrate’s discretion. At the same time it appeared to him that where it was a case of a. first offender, boy or girl, in their teens, it was inexpedient, for many' reasons, to publish their names. He would ask the Undersecretary of Justice to make the usual inquiries into the case.