This year public life has reverberated to the thuds of heavyweight careers hitting the floor on charges of “inappropriate behaviour”. The toppling of some such careers – such as that of the film producer Harvey Weinstein, whose apparently widespread, extreme sexual harassment or assault was Hollywood’s worst-kept secret – was no doubt long overdue.

Yet as the investigations have continued, the ranks of alleged offenders have broadened and perceived offences become less clear-cut. The public has been making fine judgments on single accounts of clumsy passes, borderline racy suggestions and the brush of a hand on a knee. We are thrashing out new boundaries for what is socially permissible, mapped by the serial downfall of big names. The collective behaviour at Christmas parties will no doubt be warier this year, as wise revellers stick to soft drinks and a patch well away from the mistletoe.

This phenomenon has, by and large, divided spectators. The first camp contains those who exult in the cleansing effect of shame upon eminence, and look forward to a future increasingly purged of perceived professional misbehaviour. The second includes those who now feel an intensifying unease at the wasting away of due process, and the growing muscularity of rumour and emotion in a manner that can terminate a career. This latter group includes, among others, Sir Richard Henriques.

Sir Richard knows a bit about the danger of false claims and the operation of the law: he is the retired High Court judge who wrote a damning report into the police’s Westminster paedophile inquiry, Operation Midland, which was based on claims by a single witness.

When Sir Richard turned his attention to recent scandals in political life, he may have heard familiar alarm bells ringing. He was particularly exercised by the treatment of Carl Sargeant, the Welsh Assembly minister who was accused of sexual harassment and peremptorily sacked by the Labour Party. He was found dead four days later, and at the time of his death reportedly remained unaware of the precise nature of the allegations against him, whether true or not. Sir Richard concluded that “our investigative processes are desperately in need of review … what has happened to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof even on the balance of probability?”

What has happened, among other things, is that the public has become increasingly unaware of the basic principles underpinning the law. Rumour and outrage abound on social media, the vast bulk of which goes unpoliced. The concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, too, is now frequently disregarded – sometimes even by the police, stepping over that crucial line in their eagerness to show that they are taking alleged victims seriously.

​How to continue reading…

This article appears in the Catholic Herald magazine - to read it in full subscribe to our digital edition from just 30p a week

The Catholic Herald is your essential weekly guide to the Catholic world; latest news, incisive opinion, expert analysis and spiritual reflection