CHILDREN’S COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3773, 6 July 1926, Page 27

CHILDREN’S COURT.

BOY’S IDENTITY DISCLOSED A NEWSPAPER CONVICTED. AUCKLAND, July 3. The publication of a photograph and also of a report of the proceedings at the Children’s Welfare Court, which disclosed the identity of a boy charged before that court, led to two charges of breaches of Section 30 of the Children’s Welfare Act being preferred against the Auckland Star. Mr S. L. Paterson appeared for the Crown and Mr Rogerson for the defendant. Publication was admitted. Mr Paterson said there were two charges, each being laid under Section 30 of the Children’s Welfare Act, which prohibited the publication of any particulars of cases which came before the Children’s Court, and from which the identity of a child could be learned. “It will be seen from the section that the provisions are very wide,” said Mr Paterson, “and absolutely prohibit the publication of the name of a child, or any particulars by which he may be identified. The proceedings in the court must be so framed that nothing is given which will lead to the identity of a child appearing at the court This section is a new section, and this is the first case brought before the court Under it the publication of the report in question, and the photograph which indicated the identity of the boy, constitute offences. I am instructed by the department not to press for a heavy penalty, or any penalty at all. The case is brought more for the purpose of making the provisions of the Act generally known.” Mr Rogerson said he wished to mention one or two facts. “We all support the provisions which are in the interests of children, and appreciate their object,” he said, “but I would like to point out that pnor to the publication of the report and the photograph there had been Police Court proceedings against the father. These were fully reported, and disclosed the identity of the parties, including the boy, so that all the information was then placed before the public, and in the report of the Children’s Welfare Court nothing was given that the public were not already aware of. Reporters for years have been in the habit of reporting cases of this nature, and as this is the first case of its kind, and the. department is not asking for any penalty, this matter may be met 'With merely a conviction.” Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M.: “Yes, I think that is reasonable, because the Act is a new Act. Under the Act reports can be published with the consent of the court, but under no consideration can there be published particulars which will enable children to be identified. 1 thought it right that the newspapers should be advised they could havfe representatives present at the proceedings, because I think the public should be represented. I think in tne present case, the Act being a new one, that it was a mistake. Mr Paterson said that if there was a conviction on one charge he was prepared to withdraw the other. His Worship: Very well. I will enter a conviction on one charge and order the defendant to pay costs.