The Star. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1928. AN AMAZING DISAGREEMENT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18547, 22 August 1928, Page 8

The Star. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1928. AN AMAZING DISAGREEMENT.

A STATEMENT made yesterday by Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., in regard to the suppression of names is extraordinary because it cannot be regarded as anything but an effort to review a decision of Mr Justice Adams on the same matter. The Magistrate was dealing with the case of a youth who was sentenced a few days ago by Mr Justice Adams to five years’ imprisonment for a very serious assault. The Judge on that occasion said:— “ X am very reluctant to make an order for the suppression of a name. As far as I can I have not done so. I refrain from making an order in this case because I have much faith in the discretion of those who govern the Press, and one hesitates, except in extreme cases, to make an order that would interfere with the freedom of the Press.” The Magistrate differs from the Judge, and although it was probably far from his intention to “ put him in his place,” that is the effect of his considered statement. We think that the public will take another view of the merits of the case. The suppression of names in the lower Courts has been unsatisfactory from the point of view of the public interest and even from the point of view of the individual. There are cases, rare it is true, in which suppression is desirable, and in those cases Mr Justice Adams says he has “ much faith in the discretion of those who govern the Press.” The Magistrate, in the same case, however, in a considered statement says that “the Court is the only judge of whether or not the name of an accused person should be suppressed.” This, of course, is absolutely incorrect, because the Court has not even the power to order publication, and certainly has not the power to prevent a newspaper from suppressing a name. But this is only one inaccuracy where one would look for the most scrupulous exactness. In another place the Magistrate suggests that the suppression of names is a matter at the discretion of any reporter, but it has been slated over and over again, and it is astounding to find any ignorance on this point, that no reporter in New Zealand, or in the world for that matter, is authorised to suppress a name, the question being one entirely at the discretion of the editor.