Charges have been dropped against Rebecca Leighton, the nurse who was thought to have contaminated saline solution in a Stockport hospital where several patients died with “unexplained” low blood sugar levels.

This does not, of course, mean that she didn’t do it; but it does suggest that the evidence that she did is less than convincing.

But what if she is in fact entirely innocent? Consider what has happened in the meantime.

Her name has been blazoned far and wide as that of a murderer, the case presented as if she were guilty. Her reputation has been comprehensively demolished.

Could any trial that she may have undergone (may yet still face) be entirely free of prejudice arising from the coverage her arrest received? As it is – even (perhaps especially) in the absence of a trial – she will forever be regarded as “that nurse that got away with killing her patients.”

In my young day I remember the press and media were not allowed to comment or speculate on matters that might come before a court sometime in the near future. I have long wondered when that principle, which is known in legal circles as a case being sub judice (under judgement) ceased to be applicable. Many journalists seem to be unaware of it or that the way they present their stories may be problematic: may in fact be contrary to the interests of justice. No action seems to be taken against those who break sub judice rules.

Nowadays “innocent until proven guilty” has apparently been replaced with “guilty as sin” as soon as an arrest is made.

Given that, maybe you’d better just hope that you never get arrested.