We've heard a lot about the dangers of fast food recently, but there's another development which is every bit as hazardous as fat-filled burgers and fries. Fast justice.

Maybe some of you remember the days when the arrest of a suspect - note that word - was followed by a period of silence until the trial began. This was so a jury could look at the case impartially, unaffected by comment and prejudicial press reports. A principle which went hand-in-hand with that other quaint custom of ours, the presumption of innocence.

How times have changed. Over recent years we have seen this sub judice rule forgotten. The blaze of publicity accompanying arrests often lasts until the eve of the trial. An accused person's past is chewed over in public with everyone from the arresting officer, relatives, to the owner of the corner shop venturing an opinion on their state of mind, guilt or innocence. If they're lucky they'll even get a visit on remand from an undercover tabloid journalist so they can join in the circus themselves.

At times, I wonder whether the logical conclusion to this is to do away with the court hearing completely. Judges cost a lot so why not replace them with a nice photogenic TV presenter and 12 good people and true from a studio audience. No boring tomes of evidence, just a quick interview with some witnesses and maybe a celebrity expert to provide some soundbites. Court of Appeal? Well, why not a telephone and text poll.

In the US this situation can't be far away. In the Michael Jackson case, some jurors clearly had one eye on the evidence, the other on a book deal. But are we any better?

The London bombing suspects have been arrested, charged and have appeared in court. Yet the debate on their movements and motives still rages, with politicians and press still going full tilt. Unless the court which tries them has access to a panel of 12 hermits, it is hard to see how anyone can approach their case without prejudice.

The tragic death of Jean Charles de Menezes is the subject of daily comment, fuelled by leaks from the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The Brazilian delegation investigating the death stated this week that "someone must be considered to be guilty". Their grief and anger at what occurred is entirely understandable. But that does not give them the right to pre-empt the judicial process.

You would think that the inevitable conclusion to all this would be a judge throwing out a case which has been tainted by high-profile publicity. The chances of that happening are minimal - imagine the outcry from the media and public.

Technology and the development of 24-hour news have given us a media which is more alert, but also more intrusive and powerful than ever. Policemen and politicians play along, fearful of being branded media-unfriendly.

I know all this might sound odd from someone who has themselves been branded - by the organisation Liberty no less - as a bit of a menace to civil liberties, but it is an issue which affects us all. It will lead - in fact probably has led - to innocent people being convicted and the guilty walking free.

The public's right to know and the media's right to report are important in any free society, but they have to be tempered by an individual's right to a fair hearing and a presumption of innocence. At the moment the scales of justice are alarmingly unbalanced.

Published: 26/08/2005