Especially with my police background, I am not one who would normally contribute to the line ‘one law for the rich and another for the poor’ but the statement by the Met Police that no criminal action will be taken against Nigella Lawson, who in the Grillo case on oath admitted to using drugs, seems perverse.

People are often prosecuted on the grounds of their confession (just to police not on oath) with very little other evidence. In the Lawson case the two Italian women said they saw, what they thought were drugs ‘all over the house’ and there is the evidence of her ex-husband who sent the ‘off her head on drugs’ email.

Mark Stephens, a UK lawyer, said on TV this morning, that one reason for no action was ‘the historic’ nature of the offence meant a prosecution would not be in the public interest.

Many of the Jimmy Savile’s circle have, and are, being prosecuted (correctly so in my opinion) for ‘historic cases’ on much the same weight evidence.

If prosecuted Nigella Lawson might say her confession was untrue, but then she would be open to a charge of perjury in the Grillo case !

The only thing which I see as a ‘problem’ down the line, is that in a UK court a witness can be obliged to make a statement which could incriminate them, whereas a defendant cannot. That could be grounds for an action in the EU courts.