A DANGEROUS SYSTEM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18450, 28 April 1928, Page 4

A DANGEROUS SYSTEM.

THE CASE of a man who was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment at a Children’s Court in Christchurch on Thursday raises doubt as to whether the Legislature, in a very laudable desire to protect young children, has not ignored principles of justice that are very dear to the hearts of British people. We refer to the common right of accused persons in criminal cases to an impartial and open trial. With the justice of the particular sentence nobody, after reading the report of the case, could possibly find fault. The Magistrate’s view was the only safe one—that obscene exposure, especially where children are concerned, must be severely punished. And yet, under the Child Welfare Act of 1925, the case could have becnTieard in camera, and it would have been an offence punishable with fine and imprisonment to publish a line übout it, without the special consent of the presiding Magistrate or Justices. These restrictions, which might be defensible in the ease of juvenile delinquents, arc brought about in the case of an adult by the section of the Act which provides that offences committed “by or against children ” shall, so far as they may involve the attendance of children at any Court, be heard in a Children’s Court. The question immediately arises, however, as to whether the interests of child witnesses might not he fully conserved without subjecting the accused to the dangers of possible Star Chamber methods. The fact that children arc not required to give evidence on oath is perhaps not objectionable, but there are other directions in which grave abuses might creep into the proceedings of the Court, to the disadvantage of an accused person not represented by counsel or unacquainted with Court procedure. The interests of the public, too, may be disregarded under the present law, which automatically suppresses the name of every offender, regardless of age or past record, and although, as in last Thursday’s case, the Magistrate may release a report of the proceedings, and allow the name of the offender to be published as an added measure of protection to the public, it would be quite possible for the Bench, improperly, to hush up cases that ought to he given the fullest publicity as far as the identity of the accused and the offence for which he is convicted are concerned. The law as it stands permits of secret trial and imprisonment, for Press representatives arc excluded from Children’s Courts, and publication even of the charges is prohibited. We think that a drastic alteration of the law is called for in the interests of accused persons particularly, and of the public generallv. There arc no British Courts outside New Zealand, ( as far as we are aware, where the Press can he excluded from cases involving the liberty of any man. Judges and Magistrates (but not Justices) in certain other parts of the Empire have power to clear the Court, to suppress names, or to prohibit the publication of evidence, but it is an established rule that the Press, as representing the public, cannot be excluded. Exclusion, indeed, is not necessary while the other restrictions are operative, but at the very least the Legislature, in excluding the Press from criminal trials, should have guarded against possible abuses of the system by placing upon Magistrates or Court officials the duty of supplying a report for publication in every case coming before the Court.