FURTHER LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICATION OF PARTICULARS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (Hansard, 9 June 1969)

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 11, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'subsection' in line 34 and insert 'In'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I understand that it is the desire to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 123.

§ Mr. Morgan
When Clause 10 was discussed in Standing Committee on 22nd April, a number of hon. Members expressed the view that the power of the juvenile court to authorise publication of the name of a child or young person, which subsection (1) of the Clause in its present form would remove, should be retained. On the other hand, there was also acceptance of the view that juvenile courts ought not to authorise publication as a form of extra punishment or to make an example of the child. It is to ensure that this cannot happen that subsection (1) appears in the Bill.
1124 Since doubt was expressed in Committee whether publication is ever authorised for that purpose, the House may wish to be aware that it is occasionally. This provision of the Bill, therefore, is based upon fact rather than upon conjecture. Admittedly, publication as a punishment is rare so far as is known. That is largely because the courts seldom use the power to authorise publication, for whatever purpose. Thus, the Government do not accept the suggestion, which was made in Standing Committee, that the proper course would be to leave things entirely as they are. This would frustrate the achievement of the object of Clause 10.
In the Committee discussion, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) made the constructive suggestion that the power of the court to authorise publication should be retained but put in more specific terms than the broad sphrase 'in the interests of justice'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 22nd April, 1969; c. 308.] That is what these Amendments do. They leave the power with the courts as well as with the Secretary of State. The form of words now proposed, "avoiding injustice", is intended to describe more precisely than the present law the kinds of case in which we all agree that publication should be possible. We believe that the new form of words is apt to cover all those cases but will avoid any possibility of a punitive use of this power in future.

§ Mr. Carlisle
Although the Under-Secretary to a certain extent appeared to be trying rather to "wrap it up", this is another point on which, clearly, the Government have wisely seen the force of the arguments put against their proposals and have wholly given way on the point that was made. All those who spoke in Committee proved clearly that the Government's proposal, when worked out in practical terms, was nonsense.
I am glad to see that the Government are putting back the power to the court to use its discretion in the very occasional case when it decides that lack of publication of the name of a child could cause injustice. It is right that that power should be left to the court and not to the Secretary of State, although he will have it, but not exclusively.
1125 I should like to raise a small point on Amendment No. 51. I understand that in future the justices will be able to order publication of the name of the child whom they have committed for trial only if publication would avoid injustice to that child. If my interpretation is correct, it does not meet the point which was made in Committee. There might be possible injustice not to the child who is being committed for trial, but to another child.
The example was given by Mr. Watson, in his letter to The Times, of a child being charged with murder and everybody in the locality genuinely believed that it was another child. It was to safeguard the interests of the other child that the justices agreed to publish the name of the child who was charged. The other child had been a witness and had been seen to go to the court, and the gossip went round that he had committed the murder. It seems to me that, from a drafting point of view, the Amendment does not really meet that point, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will look at it again, to check that it is correct, before the Bill reaches Committee in another place.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
By your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I would draw attention to the words in Amendment No. 51, for the purpose of avoiding injustice to him". I take the point the hon. Gentleman has made and will bear it in mind.