COURTS AND NAMES.

Southland Times, Issue 19290, 8 July 1924, Page 4

COURTS AND NAMES.

When the Offenders Probation Act of 1920 came into force the dangers of the measure were emphasised by most newspapers in the Dominion, but it is doubtful if any journal realised then the lengths to which its provisions would be stretched by the inferior Courts of the land. It may be argued that a first offender who is to be admitted to probation in order that he may be given a chance to retrieve his lost character, should be assisted by the withholding of his name from the public; and the Act shows clearly that this is what the Legislature had in its mind when it put through the measure; but it is just as clear that the inferior Courts have an idea that this particular piece of legislation can be given a much wider application. On other occasions we have presented the view that the Act cannot be read to give the Court power to suppress a first offender’s name where a sentence is imposed in the form of fine or imprisonment; but the Lower Courts evidently read the word “sentence” into the empowering clause although its omission is a significant factor in the interpretation of the section. If the view of this clause now held by the Courts holds good, a first offender, though sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, could successfully invoke the Court to make an order prohibiting the publication .of his name, which is enough to reveal the absurdity of the reading now in vogue. Now we have a new danger revealed. This Act is obviously designed to assist the first offender who is admitted to probation, but yesterday two Justices of the Peace, after inflicting a fine in what appears to have been a very serious case, blandly gave as their reason for applying what they believe to be the provisions of the Offenders Probation Act their desire to protect the relatives of the offender. This sympathy for the innocent connections of a man before the Courts is easy to understand, but can this piece of legislation be held to extend the Court’s powers to suppress names for this purpose? If this is the accepted interpretation of the Act, where is it to end? Can two Justices of the Peace for any reason they like to advance order the suppression of offenders’ names after they have been sentenced? We do not think this was the Legislature’s intention, but evidently there will be no satisfactory determination of the Court’s authority under this measure until the opinion of the Supreme Court is obtained, and it is a noticeable fact that the Higher Court has not shown so great a readiness as the inferior tribunal to apply this clause. Yesterday’s incident discloses that the Courts seem to ignore the use of the word “probation” in the Act’s title, and we fear that unless some check is administered the scope of this legislation will be made so wide that the value of publicity as a part of our system of Justice will be entirely lost.