SEXUAL abuse or violence towards young people is a wicked crime and should always attract an exemplary sentence.

It doesn’t matter if a week, a year or decades pass before justice is done – the law must take its course. The fact that the perpetrator has got away with it for so long and their victim has been denied justice makes it worse. We should neither forgive nor forget.

So far so good. No one, I hope, would disagree.

But now, our paths may diverge because the recent spate of celebrity arrests on allegations of sexual abuse has left me worried. My main concern has been that no arrest seemed complete without a media posse marching in, having clearly been briefed beforehand.

The police and the media need and use each other. The police will dress it up and call it news management, but they will work the media to get the headlines they want. The media will piously say they are doing a public service, but they make sure it sells their product. That’s their job.

Managed properly there is nothing wrong in this. But it is critical that it does not interfere with the construction of a case, the assembly of evidence and, finally, the administration of the guilty. What we must never forget is that justice can mean someone being acquitted as well as convicted.

If naming an arrested person will lead to other victims coming forward or accomplices still at large being caught, then a clear public interest can be demonstrated and someone should be named.

But without those factors, however frustrating it might be, people should only be identified when they are charged. That is how North Yorkshire Police acted when they arrested Jimmy Tarbuck and were severely criticised, without justification in my book.

Belatedly, the Director of Public Prosecutions appears to be supporting this approach and bringing some order to the scrum.

No one wants to go back to the days when police and courts thought they were above public opinion; when victims were treated with a lack of respect that was almost cruel.

But nor do I want to see police officers and prosecutors offering a running commentary on investigations and turning arrests into photo opportunities.

A justice system based on a discrete word in the right places and deference to the high and mighty is wholly outdated, but replacing it with a real life soap opera is not the answer.

AFEW rungs up from car salesmen and journalists, but nowhere near doctors and teachers are lawyers. They don’t get much pubic sympathy, particularly not those who specialise in defending people.

So it’s no surprise that the profession’s protests about £220m cuts to legal aid have been met with a fair bit of cynicism.

The legal aid bill can’t be immune from austerity. Perhaps if lawyers had practised a bit of “self-regulation” they might be in a stronger position, but, again, I can’t go with the flow on this one.

Miscarriages of justice – which tend to be very expensive to put right – are often caused by an accused person being denied properly resourced professional representation throughout the judicial process. Just take a look at the system in the US if you want to see where a cut-price free market leads.

Legal aid is like an insurance policy – something you hope you’ll never need, but which gives you peace of mind. I think it’s worth paying for.