If Nigella's reputation can be trashed in court, why can't a soldier found guilty of murder be named?
In a London courtroom Nigella Lawson is accused of being a serial drug taker of criminal proportions. Her career is put at risk and she faces shame and vilification and, probably nearly as upsetting, the schadenfreude of her former husband.
Nigella Lawson
The general public has no idea if this is true. The alleged snorting of cocaine, the introduction of class A substances to her daughter and the 10-year use of cannabis have been revealed by two women who are accused of defrauding Charles Saatchi, the man Lawson was married to for 10 years.
They claim that the payments were authorised by Lawson in exchange for keeping quiet about her secret habit. This is part of their defence and in earlier hearings they tried to get the case thrown out on the basis that the "domestic goddess" had no credibility as a witness.
A few miles across town from Isleworth Crown Court, where Lawson's reputation is being traduced, two other high-profile public figures have had their private lives pored over in court. The Old Bailey has heard that Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson had a six-year affair while they were high-flying executives at News International.
Ok, there is a crucial difference – Lawson is a witness and Brooks and Coulson are defendants – but in both cases the unsavoury facts are put forward as crucial evidence. In Lawson's case by the defence counsel and in the other by the prosecution.
In both cases the media has published the whole shooting match. It was said in court, it has absolute privilege and justice has to be seen to be done, no matter the effect on careers or marriages.
Whether we like it or not, what is said in court can be published. There are times that judges rule that there must be a delay, for instance if the reporting of the facts could jeopardise another trial, but the rule of thumb is that what is said in court, whether it be a humble magistrates' hearing or the supreme court, is open season.
So what the hell happened to the transparency of justice at a military court inside an army camp in Bulford, Wiltshire, where three marines were granted anonymity both during and after the proceedings? They were not witnesses in a fraud or caught up in unsavoury press practices, but accused of murder, and one of them was convicted. He is the first British soldier to be convicted of a war crime during the 12-year long Afghan conflict yet we are not allowed to know his name.
Lawyers for the soldiers say that revealing their names would put their families at risk from attacks. The say the families of child killers are not going to attract the attentions of armed and dangerous terrorist groups.
Barristers repeated that argument in front of the appeal court when several media groups tried to get the ruling overturned. They have the basic objection to the idea that where men have done wrong they cannot publish that to the wider public. The appeal court will make its ruling next week and its decision could have a knock-on effect for years to come.
Soon there is to be a trial of two Muslim men who were stopped in their car by armed anti-terrorist officers, but for "strong operational" reasons police want draconian court orders, banning the names of the defendants and even excluding press and public from the court.
The Justice and Security Act has recently provided for secret sessions in high court actions involving national security and anonymity orders are common in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission which hears terror-related cases. Until now such levels of secrecy were extremely rare in criminal courts but it seems terrorism is changing the nature of British courts and not for the better.
There have been other attempts to keep justice secret especially in cases where personalities have been arrested on sex assault charges but in publishing the names, other victims have come forward.
Even without knowing the full details of the Lawson case, it is regrettable that she has had her reputation trashed. I feel sorry for the cuckolded partners of Brooks and Coulson. The sins of the murderers should not be visited on the families but there is an overwhelming case for justice being served by our courts being open and transparent.
Allow me to mangle Churchill's famous dictum on democracy: "Open court (democracy) is the worst form of justice (government), except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Chris Boffey is a former news editor of the Observer, Sunday Telegraph and the Mirror