"I've heard no fuss whatsoever about any breach of sub judice anywhere except on this forum." Really? It's been reported that he's been criticised by the Speaker of the House of Lords and the Attorney General, among others, and I've seen several articles in the papers.

I agree there was a good chance that Green's court case would not have succeeded. I think it is very unlikely that the Telegraph would have risked writing a piece based solely on information from people bound by NDAs, it is more likely that it came from others who did not owe him a duty of confidentiality. But that was Green's problem. In the meantime, until the case could be heard and a decision made, it was entirely appropriate that the Telegraph should not publish.

The question of charges is a red herring. It is far from clear that Green's appalling behaviour reached the level of actual criminality, or that if it did that there was sufficient evidence to prove it before a court. But if there were, it seems to the be case that an NDA could not be used to block a complaint to the police. Instead the victims' redress has been to take quite large sums of Sir Philip's money.

I think it is very likely that Green's name would have come out sooner or later, if only through leaks from sources outside the jurisdiction of the English courts. All Hain has done is brought this forward, and in using his position in parliament to do so he has set up an unfortunate challenge to the authority of the courts. I think in different circumstances you would be very concerned about a parliamentarian interfering with the courts.