SUPPRESSING NAMES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21131, 14 March 1932, Page 12

SUPPRESSING NAMES.

OFFENDERS IN COURT. SUGGESTED DISCONTINUANCE. JUSTICES REJECT A REMIT. " That in the opinion of this conference, Iho suppression of mimes, except in very exceptional cases, be discontinued," was a. remit defeated by twelve votes to seven at the conference of the Federation of Justices' Association of New Zealand held in Wanganui last week. The remit stated that there was a strong public opinion that leniency in that direction aided and abetted crime. Mr. J. F. Franklyu (Chrislchurch), the mover, said that tlio moment a young man or woman came before the Court a solicitor rose to ask that the name should be suppressed. They should bo very careful that the young boys and girls did not get too much leniency. In the Magistrate's Courts, only in very exceptional cases, should the name b e suppressed. The easy method of suppression of names, as it operated now, did not help as a deterrent for crime of boys and girls. Mr. A. Williams (Canterbury), who seconded the remit, said that the publication of the namo in the press was a much greater punishment than prison with the suppression of tho name. Mr. D. Donaldson (Auckland) said that the magistrates who heard the cases were best qualified to judge the cases, each on its own merits. JIo could not eee that the magistrates were now doing wrong. Most men mado a slip, and if that slip placed them in Court, and if the circumI stances were such that name should not bo published, tho publication or-not of the name was in the hands of the magistrate. Mr. J. 11. Stevens (Manawatu) expressed the view that the punishment by tho publication of names fell also on the parents, brothers, and sisters of the person in Court. " I agree with Mr. Donaldson," said Mr. J. W. Bissett (Auckland). He could not see that the name should be published in all cases. Therefore ho would practically opposei the remit. They would have to use their own discretion on considering tho merits of each case. Opposition to the remit was expressed by Mr. A. L. Gee (South Canterbury). It was not necessary, he said. Over and over again be bad refused to suppress the name of an offender. The majority of the magistrates were of the same mind as he. If the publication of names would bo a hardship on the family then the magistrate used his discretion in a very wise, manner. The remit was lost by twelve voles to seven.