“BOLD DECISION”

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 29, 21 January 1929, Page 9

“BOLD DECISION”

NO SUPPRESSION OF NAMES. NEW MAGISTRATE'S POLICY. “A bold decision has been announced by Mr T. B. McNeil, who is the most recent appointee to the Magisterial Bench, in his declaration that he does not intend to order suppression of the names of offenders brought before him,” says the “Otago Daily Times. ’ ’ “He may find it difficult to adhere strictly to the course which he has laid down for himself. He may not find it always wise. As long as the law remains as it is there are cases in which the suppression of names of offenders may reasonably be held to be entirely desirable. On the other hand, there have been cases in which it has not been easy to discern any valid reason for the exercise by the Bench of its discretion in favour of the suppression of names. The lack of any uniformity of practice on the part of magistrates in the matter has been productive of a great deal of dissatisfaction. It can hardly have uecn anticipated by the Legislature, when magistrates were clothed with power to order that the names of first offenders in certain classes of cases should not be published, that the discretion would be exercised so frequent ly and so widely as it has been, and the impossibility of reconciling the de cision of one magistrate with that of another has tended to bring the whole practice into a certain amount of disrepute.

“Mr McNeil may save himself a great deal of trouble by the intimation he has given, that orders for the suppression of names will not be made by him. It will, however, hardly conduce to the smooth administration of justice if different procedures are followed in different courts but if it leads, or helps to lead, to’ an amendment of the law. which has in this respect proved itself open to abuse, it will serve a very useful purpose.

When presiding in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court for the first time, Mr McNeil defined his attitude with regard to the suppression of names. Counsel had applied for such in the case of a youth who wan remanded on a serious charge, saying that he had only turned 18 years of age, and that, permission had been given to have the case heard in the Children’s Court, and that the name would bo suppressed there in any case. “Although I will do so in this case, I do not intend to follow the practice of suppressing names,” said Mr McNeil.