“ Suppression Of Names A Matter For The Court.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18546, 21 August 1928, Page 1

“ Suppression Of Names A Matter For The Court.”

“ ONLY JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE CAN KNOW FULL CIRCUMSTANCES,” SAYS S.M.

That DISCRETION in regard to the suppression of names should be left to the judicial officer presiding over the Court and not to the newspapers, was the assertion made by Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., when reading a long statement on the subject in the Magistrate's Court this morning.

Mr Mosley was considering the case of a seventeen-year old lad who was brought tip for sentence on a charge of assault on a female. Accused had previously appeared in the Supreme Court, where Mr Justice Adams left the question of the suppression of name to the Press. In doing so, his Honor remarked that the Press was quite competent to discriminate in such cases.

Mr Tracey, who appeared for accused, asked for suppression of accused's name.

“That is unnecessary," was the reply of the Magistrate. “The Court is the only judge of whether or not the name of an accused person should be suppressed,” said Mr Mosley. “When accused appeared in this Court before, the Court thought fit to suppress the name in view of the circumstances surrounding the case. Under Section 9 of the Offences Probation Act, the Court is empowered to suppress the name of an accused person at the time of trial, conviction and .sentence.

“ No reporter or editor can be aware of the circumstances of which the Magistrate is aware. Neither can any person other than the Judge or Magistrate judge the suitability of the case for suppression or otherwise of an accused person’s name. To put any such responsibility on a reporter or an editor would seem to be a shirking of the responsibility put on the Magistrate by the Act.

“Thjs case is one in which the Supreme Court thought the name should be suppressed,” continued Mr Mosley. “A discretion is provided for in the Act, but this discretion cannot be exercised other than by the judicial officer presiding over the Court. If the Court is of the opinion that the name should be suppressed, the Court should do so. However learned and judiciallyminded a newspaper editor may be (and I for one have much to be thankful for from the newspapers), the Court has no right to place the responsibility on the newspapers.”

Accused was convicted and discharged, and an order was made fo: the suppression of his name.