Nelson Evening Mail TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1921 PUBLICATION OF OFFENDERS’ NAMES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIV, 22 March 1921, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1921 PUBLICATION OF OFFENDERS’ NAMES

SEVERAL implications have been made to the Nelson Magistrate (Air J. S. Evans, iS.AL) for an order suppressing publication of offenders’ names in Police Court proceedings. Those have been refused for, as the Magistrate explained in one instance, publicity was one of the punishments of the mis-deods in question. Altlumgh the new position has been previously explained, few people appear to . realise what it moans. An imporant section in the. Offenders Probation Act passed last session provides that “if any person accused of an offence within the meaning of this Act has not previously boon convicted of any offence, the Court may prohibit the publication of his name in any report or account of his arrest, trial, or conviction, or ly his release on probation,” Some significant remarks wore made in January last by the Timaru Magistrate (Mr E. D. Alosolcy. S.M.), in refusing an application for suppression of name by a young man whose wife pleaded guilty to the theft of household linen to the- value of .CO 18s. Tie said: —

He was not in favour of the suppression of tin; names of offenders against the law. In the case before him there was a young child to bo considered, and he admitted that if the name of the offender got about it might he hard for her ami the husband to get employment as a married couple, in which capacity they had acted when the theft was committed. The Legislature gave him the power to order the suppression of the name of the accused, hut ho did not propose to create a precedent. He was aware of the fact that >n DO per cent, of the eases which came before the Court, the

subsequent, publicity Avas perhaps the greatest punishment inflicted, while it, was also a safeguard for the public. The public avus entitled to be safeguarded from people avlio were liable to commit offences such as that before bis notice, and although it might be bard on the busband ami wife, it was the public interest Avbieli bis Worship bad to lake into account. The Legislature

gave him the power to order the suppression of the. name, but. lie did not intend to use that unless in •' very exceptional circumstances, and this ease avus not in that category. He was sorry lie could not comply with flic application, but be could not overlook the interests of the' public. In a case which came Indore a Christchurch magistrate (one of (lie most experienced) a girl nt eighteen years and her motlier pleaded guilty to shop-lifting on two occasions. The offence was without the excuse of poverty, and it Avas repeated after a two mouths’ interval for reflection. The magistrate was persuaded to prohibit publication of (he names; but Avben some men were charged the next day with, stealing hams their names acre published, and subsequent variations in the application of its discretion by the court made the principle on which it acted undiscoverable. More recently the magistrate at Napier, in refusing to make an order, confessed the difficulty in which courts bad boon

plan'd. “A law lias been passed," he said, "gibing magisl rates (lie rigid. In order the suppression of names, bid on what basis we are to art 1 do not know,'’ tine ol (ho worst eases so lar is the suppression of the names ol a youth, charged helore justices at. Wellington uilli stealing about Libit worth of articles Imm two houses. Th,. plea made lor him by Ills counsel was flint “the accused was very well cuimeclcd ; all his brothers and sisters had made good; he was the youngest, of the Lundy, and, had perhaps been mure indulged than the others and laid run wild, and the publication of his linin'- would lull •very hardly on his parents and brothers and sisters." 'I he publication of names of offenders is a very pa inful duly, for it always tails baldly upon somebody. Rut there is no doubt that fear of publicity is oi great public value as a deterrent against crime. Then again, if names are to he suppressed by justices, or own magistrates acting' on diilcrenl standards, the law will be brought into disrepute, in regard to the Wellington ease (piuted. il the plea ot “well connected” is G> ha\e the slightest iullneiice, the country will soon get back into a very rotten slate of privilege.