SUPPRESSION OF NAMES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3755, 2 March 1926, Page 35

SUPPRESSION OF NAMES.

MAGISTRATE’S PRONOUNCEMENT. (From '" or Own Correspondent.) AUCKLAND, February 25. A pronouncement on the vexed question of the suppression of names in police court cases was made yesterday by Mr J W. Poyntou, S.M., in suppressing the name of a man who admitted a charge of being intoxicated while in charge of a motor truck on the Great North road. The magistrate said there was a wide difference between appropriating a motor-car and going “joy-riding” and being intoxicated while in charge of a motor-car. In all criminal acts intention was essential, but not so in the case of an intoxicated motorist. No person would intentionally take liquor to place himself in jeopardy. His condition would be due to somethng else besides intention—perhaps to an error in judgment as to his carrying capacity, the strength of the liquor consumed, or his nervous condition at the time. His first offence in this respect was morally less grave than that of the “joy rider.” From the first moment of the “joy rider’s” intention to take another man’s car until the time he got away with it there was in his mind a wrong intention. For these reasons it was a worse offence than the other. If the name of an intoxicated motorist, who was a first offender, were suppressed it did not apply to “joy ridel’s.” Mr J. J. Butler, for the accused, said the latter was a drainage contractor and owned a motor lorry. He came into town on Tuesday and had a few drinks. While returning along the Great North road he ran into a pole and smashed the lorry considerably, and in consequence he was a heavy loser. Although he had some drinks they did not affect him to any great extent. He was a married man and his character was good. Counsel asked the magistrate not to give him a term of imprisonment as the accused had several contracts in hand. Sergeant Cal well said not hing was previously known about the accused. The traffic on the road was heavy at the time of the accident. Accused was fined £lO and costs.