SUPPRESSION OF NAMES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19231, 21 January 1926, Page 10

SUPPRESSION OF NAMES.

ORDER MADE BY JUDGE.

CROWN PROSECUTOR'S VIEWS

The question of the effect of the suppression of names cropped up in tlje Supreme Court yesterday, when a youth, aged 20, appeared for sentence for stealing £66 in cash and cheques from K.K. Footwear, Ltd., Newton. Mr. on behalf of prisoner, said the publication of his name might very seriously prejudice his sister, who held an important position in a city firm. Mr. Meredith, Crown prosecutor, said that in cases where people were admitted to probation and had their names suppressed it practically meant immunity from punishment. The public were entitled to the protection and the knowledge afforded through the publication of the names of wrongdoers. The offence was extremely serious and he considered suppression of the name would be extending the benefits of the Act rather far. The amount stolen had been recovered with th,i exception of £ll 17s Id. Mr. Justice Stringer said the probation officer's report was quite favourable. He was always reluctant to make, an order for suppression of a prisoner's name and did so only when special circumstances had to be considered. Apparently the magistrate who heard the case in the lower Court had considered there were special circumstances in the case as he had ordered the suppression of the name. In view of this he would follow the precedent, but only on Mr. Dickson's assertion that innocent persons would suffer if the name were published. Prisoner was admitted to probation for three years and was ordered to make restitntion of the amount outstanding within a month. _