Andrew has been presumed guilty from the off

Last week’s arrest of the former prince, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, is not without precedent, despite what many in the media are claiming. Princess Anne was convicted in 2002 under the Dangerous Dogs Act, after one of her bull terriers attacked two children.

But as the weeks wear on, the treatment of Andrew really is starting to look unprecedented. Indeed, such has been the media-fuelled desire to punish and humiliate him, long-standing principles of justice are being thrown out of the window.

There are new stories every day about the former prince. New allegations, new calls for action, new sordid details. The latest revelations involve senior civil servants claiming Andrew used taxpayers’ money to buy ‘massage services’ while he was a trade envoy for the New Labour government in the early 2000s. Former UK prime minister Gordon Brown has apparently written letters to six police forces (seriously Gordon, get a new hobby) calling for an investigation into Andrew’s time as trade envoy. Brown is especially fixated on the question of whether Andrew used RAF bases to meet Jeffrey Epstein.

The punishments keep coming, too. Having already removed Andrew’s titles, the royal family is now reportedly considering removing him from the line of succession. This is almost certainly academic – the monarchy would probably be overthrown before the British public allowed Andrew to be king.

The climate around Andrew has become feverish. You don’t have to believe that he is morally spotless to see that something bad is happening here. He has been arrested for misconduct in a public office, a sprawling offence that could cover any number of different allegations. Currently, it looks like the investigation is focussed on Andrew’s apparent sharing of confidential information with Epstein while trade envoy. Should he be prosecuted, a court will have to consider, among other things, whether a trade envoy is legally a ‘public officer’ and whether Andrew was acting in this capacity when he did anything wrong. On the available evidence, these will be difficult questions to resolve.

Either way, the relentless stream of supposedly revelatory photos, of contextless emails and general speculation is bad for justice. We have no idea how these constant public announcements might impact on the fairness of any trial that Andrew might face.

These endless ‘revelations’ are not just terrible from a legal perspective – they are also dehumanising. Andrew has been reduced to an object of interminable public pillory. Many seem to be revelling in his public downfall. He has been stripped of all military titles and publicly disowned by the king. And the commentariat have cheered on his humiliation at every stage. The glee from quarters as Andrew is dragged lower and lower in public life, the turning of his collapse in status into a public spectacle, is close to medieval. Perhaps they should just put him in the stocks and have done with it.

Amid all this, it’s easy to forget something incredibly important: Andrew is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You may have your view about what Andrew has or hasn’t done. People are free to believe the complaints against him from the late Virginia Giuffre and others. But we cannot conduct public life on the basis that someone is guilty of something for which there is not, as yet, strong evidence. Andrew appears to have been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion without facing a single day before a court of law. This is an affront to justice.

Andrew does need to explain himself, though. After his pompous, contemptuous performance during that infamous BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis, he deserved the criticism that has since come his way. He clearly thought he could talk any old rubbish and people would buy it. Those who have made allegations against him deserve their day in court. Few would suggest that he should continue as normal when under active police investigation.

But in order for a legal process to mean anything, we have to reserve judgement. We need to keep in mind the possibility that Andrew is innocent of any crimes he’s accused of. Most importantly, we have to stop the inhumane clamouring for his blood.

It’s time to take a breath and treat him like any other person accused of a crime. And that means he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The current virtue-signaling circus around his arrest is a disgrace – and a menace to justice.

Luke Gittos is a spiked columnist and author. His most recent book is Human Rights – Illusory Freedom: Why We Should Repeal the Human Rights Act, which is published by Zero Books. Order it here.