On 19 July, in a long awaited judgment, the UK's Supreme Court rejected an application for a privacy injunction by a man caught up in the Oxford child grooming scandal.
In presenting the judgment, Lord Sumption said that he recognised that the Court's reaffirmation of this crucial principle could lead to some unfairness in certain circumstances. But in a memorable phrase, he described this unfairness to the innocent as "collateral damage which is the price that we pay for a transparent system of public justice". No doubt Mr Khuja will disagree, but this is the right decision for open justice.
Privacy injunctions (as opposed to more standard reporting restrictions) are typically the preserve of wealthy footballers and celebrities, often those with sexual secrets to hide. But in this case, the circumstances were very different, addressing the question of whether matters exposed at a public criminal trial may be reported.