When the media drooled over Nigella Lawson’s performance, and her physical appearance, as a witness in the trial of her two former assistants for fraud, David Cameron inexplicably and inexcusably climbing on to the bandwagon, my thoughts were with the accused.
So I make no apology for rejoicing in the acquittal of Francesca Grilllo and her sister, Elisabetta.
It is assumed that Lawson’s former husband, Charles Saatchi, was instrumental in criminal proceedings being brought against the sisters. People must make their own judgements as to whether his desire to see them punished reflected the justifiable anger of an employer who sees his cash spent frivolously by staff or the unspeakable act of an obnoxious bully with much more money than common decency.
But the drooled-over Domestic Goddess was deeply engaged in the fray, too.
She expressed “disappointment” at the outcome of the trial which can only mean that she had been content to see the women – one of whom, by her own consent, was a rock, seen almost as part of her family – spend at least this Christmas and probably another in jail.
She saw it as her “civic duty” and bitterly complained that the proceedings had been turned into a trial of her alleged drug habit.
I have sympathy with her on that, on grounds of natural justice rather than because I happen to warm to her public persona. But her presence as a key prosecution witness at Isleworth crown court, against all the background of recent events, made it fairly inescapable that she would face some difficult questions. She can hardly blame the sisters for fighting hard to avoid a fate she would have considered not “disappointing”.
Despite the crass reporting, on radio and TV especially, that you may have seen, the verdict does not mean – or does not necessarily mean – the jury believed the defence that the women were allowed to spend lavishly in return for their silence on Lawson’s cocaine use.
Every reporter should know the test of criminal guilt: it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The jury may, therefore, have done no more than give the sisters the benefit of any doubt, as the law requires them to. Of course, it also possible they believed the defence and rejected Lawson's claim to have made only limited use of drugs; the secrets of the jury room mean that should not be revealed.
Saatchi and Lawson are fabulously wealthy and will not suffer greatly as a result of the not guilty verdict. Lawson, with all that fawning Team Nigella support from Cameron and so many others, will doubtless rise above her fleeting discomfort. Perhaps both will reflect on the wisdom of their charmless pursuit of the Grillos, questionable - perhaps in a disciplinary rather than criminal sense - as the sisters' spending of their ample reserves of money may have been.
And for the record, I do not believe any interest would be served by Scotland Yard wasting their time and resources on investigating Nigella's drug use. The sooner this squalid affair is done with, the better.
* feel free to make Nigella richer by buying the book show above: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0701172878/salusund-21
* Salut! imposes no Murdoch-style paywall and has no intention of doing so. But it takes time, effort and money to keep the site going. If you feel it is a worthwhile project, you may become a Friend of Salut.
This you can do for £10 on an annual subscription, or £50 for a lifetime subscription (which necessarily means mine as well as yours!). Anyone subscribing to a lifetime's Friendship will receive a Salut! mug. If this idea takes off, further benefits may be added in due course.
No one is under any obligation to join. If you enjoy Salut! enough to do so, here's how ...
Subscribe as a Friend for a £10 a year
Or subscribe to Friendship for life: £50
Recent Comments