TWO CHARGES FOR DISCLOSING NAME.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17890, 5 July 1926, Page 15

TWO CHARGES FOR DISCLOSING NAME.

BREACHES OF CHILDREN’S WELFARE ACT MADE BY AUCKLAND PAPER. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, July 4. Publication of a photograph, also a sport of proceedings at the Children's ourt, which disclosed the identity of a »oy charged before that Court, led to wo charges of breaches of Section 30 f the Ch.ldren’s Welfare Act being preerred against the “ Auckland Star.” Jr S. L. Paterson appeared for the Crown. Mr Rogerson, for defendant, dmitted publication. Mr Paterson said there were two harges, each being laid under Section 0 of the Children’s Welfare Act, which prohibited publication of any particulars of cases which came before the hildren’s Court from which the Idenity of a child could be learned. “It vill be seen from the section that the irovisions are very' wide,” said Mr Patrson, “ and absolutely prohibit publiation of the name of a child or any particulars by which he may be idenfied. A report of the proceedings in he Court must be so framed that no hing is given which may lead to the lentity of a child appearing at the Court being disclosed. This section is i new section, and this is the first case rought before the Court. Under it he publication of the report, in quesion, and a photograph which indicatd the identity of the boy, constitute ‘ffences. I am instructed by the De artment not to press for a heavy pen ltv, or any penalty at all. The case is ■rought more for the purpose of malcig the provision of the Act generally mown.” Mr Rogerson said he wished to menon one or two facts. “We all support the provisions, which are in the interests of children, and appreciate Lheir object,” he said; “but I woub 1 ike to point out that prior to the pub iication of the report and photograph there had been Police Court proceedings against the father. These were ully reported, and disclosed the Iden tity of the parties, including the boy' o that all the information was then placed before the public and in the eport of the Children’s Court nothing was given that the public were not aleady aware of. Reporlers for years had 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 mat :er may' be met merelb by a con- . viction.”

Mr Cutten. S.M.: Yes; I think that is easonable, 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. T ■ hought it right that the papers should be advised that they could have representatives present at the proceedings, because I think the public should be represented. I think in the present case, the Act being a new one, that it was a mistake. Mr Paterson said that, if a conviction was recorded on one charge, he was prepared to withdraw the other. His Worship: Very well. I will enter a conviction on one charge, and order defendant fo pay costs.