You're being just as vague as Iains, Howard. Interestingly, I've heard no fuss whatsoever about any breach of sub judice anywhere except on this forum. Also, I should like to know how the accurate naming of an alleged miscreant, which is all Hain did, could prejudice anything at all except a decision, which would have been an entirely wrong and almost certainly ineffective decision, to perpetuate Green's anonymity. What Hain has done is to demonstrate that power and money has not bought the anonymity, and avoidance of embarrassment, to Green that he so lusted after. The fact that there were other victims apart from the five who signed NDAs, perfectly free to speak out, makes his stance all the more laughable. He was always going to be exposed, and there was nothing the courts could have done about it. Granting the injunction brought the legal system into disrepute.

Exposing Green, quite likely emboldening other victims to come forward sooner rather than later, and showing that money, power and influence can't be guaranteed to buy injustice, was one hundred percent in the public interest. I can't see how anyone can deny that. The end has fully justified the means. If you don't agree, then I'd like to ask you precisely what it is you think you're defending. Don't give yourselves indigestion.