GRAVE CRIME BY YOUTH OF SEVENTEEN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17834, 30 April 1926, Page 9

GRAVE CRIME BY YOUTH OF SEVENTEEN.

JUDGE REFUSES TO SUPPRESS NAME. SAYS PAPERS EXERCISE WISE DISCRETION. Mr Justice Adams to-day refused to order the newspapers to suppress the name of Rowland Hook, seventeen years of ago, who came up for sentence for attempting to interfere with a boy. Ilis Honor commented on the wise discretion exercised by the Christchurch newspapers in these cases, and said the question might be left to them. The application was made by Mr M’Carthy, counsel for Hook. Mr M’Carthy said that Hook's father would state that for 200 years no mem- . ber of the family had been before a court of justice. Doctors reported that the prisoner was a sexual pervert, lie should be under firm and sympathetic treatment. The case might be referable to the Child Welfare Act. The method of treating offenders was dealt with in Section 13 of the Act. The publication of names, Mr M’Carthy said, had a far-reaching effect. In one case he knew of. a teacher was convicted of interfering with children. The names of the victims were published, and difficulty was experienced in getting them into the boarding-out branch of a secondary institution. The managers of the institutions at first absolutely refused to take in the victims, but when they heard what the speaker had to say, they admitted them as pupils. Mr Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, said that Hook came from a respectable family and the case was a very sad one. There was no doubt that special treatment was desirable.

His Honor said that he had ordered suppression of a name in only one case. The practice was a two-sided one. If an offender’s name was suppressed, there always was a possibility that some other person would be blamed. There was also a very obvious public danger and a danger to the offender himself. In ordinary circumstances, his Honor said, he was very pleased to protect a youth from the consequences, other than those imposed by the law, of his wrong acts, but an order to suppress a name should be made in only extreme cases.

Ilis Honor continued that he had found—and reliance could be placed ort the fact—that the newspapers of Christchurch and of the whole of New Zealand. exercised a very wise discretion in matters of that nature. If the newspapers thought that the present case was a case in which the name should not be published, they, doubtless, would exercise their usual wise discretion. He could not make the order.

Hook was remanded until May 14, in order that the Rev F. Rule, probation officer, might make inquiries into the position, his Honor saying that he did not think Hook could be-sent to the Borstal Institute.

Mr M’Carthy said that even Hook’s parents did not ask for probation.