MAGISTRATE’S DECREE ON NAME SUPPRESSION SEVERELY CRITICISED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18548, 23 August 1928, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S DECREE ON NAME SUPPRESSION SEVERELY CRITICISED.

PRESSMEN OFTEN KNOW MORE OF PARTICULARS OF CASE THAN THE S.M.

(Special to the “ Star. ”) WANGANUI. August 23.

The following appeared in the “ Wanganui Herald" yesterday : "Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., of Christchurch, in a Press Association message, is reported to have stated that the suppression of names should be left to the judicial officer presiding over a Court and not to the newspapers, and that no editor, or reporter could be aware of the circumstances of the cases. Mr Mosley is evidently assuming a great deal. In fact, in other words, he is making an ill-considered shot at random. Would it surprise him to learn that reporters who attend the Courts regularly often know a great deal more about the circumstances of cases than do the learned Magistrates? The reason is easily understood, for the Magistrate in his judicial capacity to a very large extent stands aloof, while the reporter rubs shoulders with all classes of the coin; murtity daily. lie hears their secrets and is taken into their confidence. He has revealed to him the open book of human nature, where the Magistrate on the other hand in numerous instances only sees the brown paper cover. Would it surprise Mr Mosley to learn that the reporters have known of instances where Magistrates, misguided by the eloquence of counsel, have orderea the suppression of the name when it was entirely in the interest of the public that the said name should be published in the most prominent position in the newspaper? The Magistrate is only in a position to know the circumstances from the evidence and the police, or Probation Officer's reports. Often reporters have information about the parties before the Court that neither the police nor Probation Officers are in a position to obtain.”