Editorial: Head-scratching over suppression

OPINION: It's a bit of a head-scratcher really. Two young men, aged just 15 and 17, appeared in the Palmerston North Youth Court on Tuesday charged in relation to the high-profile stabbing of a man in The Square in the early hours of January 17.

A 12-year-old boy was also arrested in connection with the attack.

When the older teens appeared in court this week, like all defendants in the youth jurisdiction, they were granted automatic name suppression. But so was the alleged victim.

Now, in the normal course of events that would not be so unusual. In this case, however, the victim had already been identified on the front page of the Manawatu Standard and other print and online media after speaking openly to journalists, and even posing for photographs of his wounds.

So, despite the public already knowing who the victim was, now his name cannot be printed. This is where the head scratching begins, but not where it ends.

You see, the judge hearing the case acknowledged the man's name had been widely publicised, but said it should now be suppressed because publication could identify the teenagers charged with the attack.

Again, that's often a legitimate reason for banning publication of a name, but the fingernails dig deeper into one's scalp in this particular case because this was a random attack by local youths on a man who lives elsewhere (I would tell you where, but it might breach the suppression order. Of course, if you read the original report in this newspaper, you will already know).

Suppressing the name of the stabbing victim is of no great outrage from the media's perspective, but it reveals some of the outdated fuzzy thinking that still pervades too many court benches throughout the country.

Some judges seem to be trying to apply 20th century constraints on a 21st century information age. How the courts restrict information to protect the interests of justice when information can be published digitally by anyone and immediately shared with everyone is a vexing issue.

They should not simply roll over and accept the publication of prejudicial information as inevitable, but they must tackle the challenges they face with a degree of realism.

The right to a fair trial is a fundamental democratic principle, and should not be allowed to be swallowed up by technological advances. The public and media will accept some restrictions on the freedom of expression, but they must be reasonable.

Trying to suppress information that has already been published in print and on the internet is not only futile, it's outright farcical.

One more thing: It is great to see so many people getting involved in the Snack on Sport lunchtime activities in The Square. Sport Manawatu should be applauded for coming up with the initiative.

- © Fairfax NZ News