The secret justice debate has been reignited again this week with former I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Out Of Here! contestant Aggro Santos calling for rape suspects to be given anonymity until they are convicted.

Mr Santos made the remarks after his recent trial in which he was acquitted of two counts of rape. In a far reaching interview, Santos hit out at the media for writing “as if [he had been] found guilty”.

Speaking to ITV’s Daybreak he said: “I think it definitely tarnishes your reputation because surely there is always going to be people out there who wonder ‘why would people say that?’, stuff like that. It is terrible because sometimes you do get people who do try to put people in situations like this and then it is not fair when the person has gone through the whole process and been found innocent”.

The question of whether a “tarnished” reputation is sufficient reason to withdraw judicial transparency and reduce the chances of the public assisting in furthering criminal investigations is a controversial one.

Mr Santos is not the only one advocating for this “secret justice” approach. Christine Hamilton recently tweeted “trial by media now, the pendulum has swung too far”.

It’s not just shamed former television icons that are fuelling the controversy. The decision by Warwickshire Police Force not to name a retired police officer who had been charged with the theft of £113,000 from the former Warwickshire Police headquarters has been met with some astonishment. The Force have since apologised for not naming the officer.

There is, however, no serious support for the arguments put forward by Mr Santos and Mrs Hamilton to give suspects anonymity after they’re charged. The real debate centres around whether suspects should be named upon arrest, before they’re charged. Recent examples of this include Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall.

An authoritative voice on the matter, former Metropolitan Police commissioner, Lord Blair acknowledged the difficult nature of this but was adamant that secrecy was not the answer. “If you take the Stuart Hall case, if he had not been named the victims would not have come forward. It’s as simple as that, we have to do it” said Lord Blair. I am reminded of Hall’s bullish remarks three months ago before more victims came forward in which he dismissed allegations as “pernicious, callous, cruel and, above all, spurious”. He has now pleaded guilty to fourteen offences of indecent assault.

Proposals by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) are being contemplated which would provide police with guidance on this point. These proposals would mean that the public would be informed of arrests, but suspects would only be named should there be sufficient evidence to charge them. This would include a special circumstances exemption.

Clarifying ACPO’s current position, Chief Constable Andy Trotter said: “we advise forces, working with the Crown Prosecution Service, to name those who have been charged and that position will not change. When an individual has been arrested, our current guidance is not to name them and we will only release the name for the prevention or detection of crime, or if there is a serious public interest.

“ACPO is working on new guidance to provide clear direction to avoid inconsistencies where some police forces confirm details of an arrested individual if journalists have gathered the information from other sources.”

Whilst the position post-charge appears straightforward, the naming of suspects before they’re charged is much less clear-cut. In truth, whilst the tarnishing of reputations may be regrettable, it is also necessary. The interests of justice must surely outweigh the interests of individuals.