“Suppression Of Names In Children’s Court Is Sentimental Farce.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18642, 20 December 1928, Page 11

“Suppression Of Names In Children’s Court Is Sentimental Farce.”

ACT, AS AT PRESENT CONSTITUTED, IS STRONGLY CONDEMNED BY CHRISTCHURCH LEGAL OPINION.

STRONG CONDEMNATION of the Act which provides that the names of all offenders appearing in the Children’s Court be suppressed was expressed by members of the legal profession in Christchurch this morning. Most solicitors thought the names of children who appeared on minor charges should be suppressed, but considered it absurd that adult offenders should escape publicity merely because their offences brought them within the jurisdiction of the Children’s Court.

Under the Act, as at present constituted, all offenders appearing in the Children's Court, whether adult or juvenile, have their names suppressed automatically, and the Press is unable to publish either the names or evidence that would lead to the offender’s identity being disclosed. All the solicitors who were interviewed this morning were unanimous in condemning the section of the Act which prohibits the publication of the names of all offenders. One prominent barrister went as far as to urge the abolition of the Children’s Court, giving, in place, wider powers to the magistrates. This opinion was not endorsed, many lawyers, thinking that while there were defects in the present position of the Children’s Court there was much to be argued in favour of its continuance.

Clime Among the Young. “The Children’s -Court, as it operates at present, is nothing less than a sentimental farce,” declared Mr F. D. Sargent. “The public are led to believe that there is little juvenile crime, whereas the majority of the criminal cases of late have been featured by the amount of crime among the young people. Young lads of sixteen or seventeen years of age who commit serious crimes are brought into a Court room shorn of all the appearance of surroundings of a Court, and escape the punishment of publicity. Adult criminals, charged with serious offences against children are sheltered from public exposure and are “molly-coddled” by absurd legislation. Such happenings are contrary to the public good, and do not act as a deterrent to criminals.” Mr Sargent said that it was not always in the interests of the accused that the Press should be excluded. Injustice might be done and the accused have no redress owing to the secrecy surrounding the Court. “It is an unnecessary Court and is an inconvenience to the public,” he said. “Its workqngs are laborious and expensive, and it is unnecessary that Justices of the Peace should sit with the magistrate. I would favour the abolition of the Court and the granting of wider powers to the •magistrates, who could be given full discretion in regard to the suppression of names.” Mr Sargent condemned any tendency to limit the freedom of the Press. He favoured perfect freedom being given to the Press, subject to certain reasonable limitations. “ Act is Anomalous.” “ The Act governing the Children’s Court is anomalous, and absurd,” said

Mr R. Twvneham. “ Children who are charged .with minor offences’ are justified in having protection and immunity from publication, but adult offenders who come within the scope of the Court through offences committed on children should be. given the widest publicity. A criminal is afforded no protection from publicity in the other Courts, whereas a more serious offender who might come before the Children’® Court is allowed to escape the punishment of the publicity of his name. I certainly think that trivial offences committed by children should not be enlarged by the publication of the offenders’ names, but the anomaly in the Act allows for no differentiation. Mr Twvneham did not favour the abolition of the Children’s Court, which he considered did good work in several directions. There was to fear, however, that the present policy might have the effect of lulling the public into the belief that little or no juvenile crime existed. M Deterrent Influence Lessened.” “ The deterrent influence of the Children’s Court is lessened by the prohibition of the publication of offenders’ • names, but the reformative influence is enlarged,” said Mr A. W. Brown, who thought that young children might be unduly punished by being made to appear in open Court, where uniformed police and the severity of the surroundings might shock the child mind. He thought that the Children’s Court was a necessari' institution, and did much good work, but considered that the Act should be altered to allow the publication of the names of the serious offenders. The names of adult accused should certainly be published. Mr M. J. Burns endorsed the opinion that the Act needed reform in connection with the publication *?f names.’ In certain cases it might be in the interests of the accused that the Press be allowed full freedom. Lads of sixteen and seventeen years of age and adults who were faced with serious charges should not have their names suppressed without discretion on the part of the magistrate. Another prominent city barrister strongly condemned the parent Act, and considered it unnecessary for J.P.’s to sit on the Bench at sittings of the Children’s Court.

One or two lawyers did not care to express an opinion at the moment, but several others, when interviewed, fully endorsed the previous opinions that it was absurd for all offenders who appeared in the Children’s Court to be protected from publicity without any discretion or discrimination.