GIVE it a few months and it will be a quiz question that has everyone scratching their heads. What were the names of the two sisters at the centre of the Nigella Lawson trial?

Maybe you’ve forgotten about Francesca and Elisabetta Grillo already, even though it’s only a matter of days since they were acquitted of defrauding Ms Lawson and Charles Saatchi of more than £600,000 – or loose change as it is probably classed in a household awash with money and misery.

You couldn’t be blamed for your forgetfulness as the sisters had mere walk-on roles in this sickly mixture of courtroom drama and soap opera, tragedy, farce and media circus that laid bare some awful deficiencies in the legal system.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a member of Team Nigella – or team anybody. But I am a supporter of fair play and believe that Ms Lawson – a prosecution witness, not a defendant – was not treated justly.

Because in terms of the media, this was the Nigella Lawson trial, in which allegations about her personal behaviour overshadowed the criminal charges against the defendants.

Those allegations were aired in court as the judge sanctioned evidence of “bad character”, basically allowing the defence to call into question her credibility as a witness.

Judges can only allow this if they think the evidence is really significant. The argument will rage for some time whether his judgement call was right in this case.

One thing is certain though, and that’s when bad character evidence is admitted, it leaves the witness open to hugely damaging public accusations for which they have not been prepared and to which they have no right of reply. They are at the centre of a oneside media free-for-all.

This is plainly wrong and is a denial of their human rights to reputation and good character. The law must be changed - it’s Section 100 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act - and anyone put in this position should be given the right to independent legal representation and the chance to call witnesses who can rebut the allegations. Ms Lawson had the public sympathy and - let’s be honest – the resources and connections – to recover from this deeply unpleasant episode.

My concern is for the witnesses who come to court to do their civic duty and give evidence and then find themselves at the centre of media attention as their private life and character is picked apart in full public view. The people who walk out of court having done no wrong but who must face family, friends and neighbours, with a wholly unjust mark on their reputation.

I’m writing this on the day that Alan Turing, the code-breaker who shortened the Second World War and saved countless lives, was granted a Royal Pardon. Turing was convicted of homosexual acts in 1952. He was not jailed after agreeing to undergo experimental chemical castration, but his career was over and he died, possibly by suicide, two years later. There is only one word to describe the way the authorities and by implication, society treated Turing: barbarism.

We’ve come a long way since those days, but we haven’t travelled far enough for my comfort. We’re still afflicted with the same ailments of self-righteousness, prurience and inability to draw a line between public interest and plain nosiness. We have created a national media in our own image, cynical and sensation-seeking. We need to wise up and grow up a little bit more.