Thirteen days later they were found dead near Lakenheath air base, Suffolk. Mr Huntley was the Soham Village College caretaker and his partner had worked at the next-door St Andrew's primary.The Old Bailey indictment includes a joint charge of conspiracy to pervert justice. The couple are not expected to attend a pre-trial hearing at the end of next week.Mr Huntley's father, Kevin, 47, has resigned as caretaker at another school. His mother, Lynda, left her job as a cleaner there last year..

The question is: who's next? Will it be one of the two former Labour ministers, or another television presenter? Or perhaps another internationally known pop star will be named as the subject of a police inquiry into serious sexual offences, his picture emblazoned across newspaper front pages, the press pack camped on his doorstep. Then, one media outlet is brave or foolish enough to use the name – and suddenly it's open season on that person's private life and public work. Then comes the high-profile arrest by police, accompanied by a media scrum and the popping of a thousand flashbulbs.In some cases – Gary Glitter and Jonathan King, for example – the accused are guilty of awful crimes. But other cases – such as that of David Jones, the former Southampton Football Club manager – where individuals are cleared by a jury but must live with the stigma for the rest of their lives, raise serious questions about whether there are sufficient safeguards in place in both the media and the criminal justice system to protect the reputations of the innocent.Whatever the outcome of the Townshend and Kelly cases, for the rest of their lives both men will see events of the past few days revisited every time their names are mentioned in the media. At the same time, if either of these cases does reach court, can they be guaranteed a fair trial? Or, as Townshend is reported to have said last weekend, "I haven't been charged with anything. But I think I'm fucked.''The case of Mr Jones is a reminder of what can happen.

In 1999, as manager of the Premiership club Southampton, Mr Jones was arrested by Merseyside detectives investigating child abuse allegations – part of the nationwide inquiry into abuse in care homes in the 1970s and 1980s. Mr Jones has worked in care homes in his native Merseyside.A man well-liked within the football business, he endured 18 months of personal and professional turmoil before the charges were dropped in December 2000, after one of his accusers refused to give evidence in court. He had been given leave of absence by his club to fight the case, but was replaced by Glenn Hoddle before the trial. Dismissing the charges, the judge at Liverpool Crown Court congratulated him on the "restraint and dignity'' with which he had behaved, and added: "There will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire .. Such an attitude would be wrong. No wrongdoing on your part has been established.''The judge's comments made little difference to his club, which did not offer him his old job back, or to those on the terraces who continue to chant insults at him at matches he now attends as manager of Wolverhampton Wanderers.Similar cases, such as that of Quinten Hann, the leading snooker player who was cleared of rape offences last year, raise the question of whether anonymity should be granted to anyone accused of sex offences. This had been the case, but the law was changed in the late 1980s because of the practical difficulties it created. If, for instance, a rape suspect escaped custody, the police could not issue a warning naming him as a potential rapist without getting judicial permission.The Home Office, the judiciary and civil rights pressure groups such as Liberty are in rare agreement that the overriding principle of openness is a vital ingredient in the criminal justice system, while acknowledging the stress to some in specific cases.

John Wadham, director of Liberty, said: "The right to open justice is a fundamental one and we believe that defendants should be tried in public and the public should know what goes on.''Why single out sex offenders for anonymity and name those accused of even more serious crimes, such as murder? How would anonymity for sex offences apply where other offences are involved? Harry Fletcher, of the National Association of Probation Officers, said: "While cases like Townshend and Kelly do raise the issue of anonymity, it is difficult to see how to draw the line.''What all sides agree on is that matters would be simpler if both the police and the media behaved themselves. The media should be well aware that the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, which restrict the amount of background material that can be published, apply at the point of arrest and not, as is sometimes commonly supposed, at the point of charge. This has allowed newspapers to cite examples of Townshend's work as showing his interest in child abuse. Townshend has claimed that his interest arises from being abused as a child and his campaigning against child abuse.The reluctance of government law officers to take action against the media in all but a few very high profile cases – such the Sunday Mirror's fine for its coverage during the trial of the Leeds footballers Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate – and the tendency of judges to dismiss defence claims of prejudice at the outset of trials has given the media considerable licence. Mr Wadham said: "My real concern is that the disclosure of details of [a suspect's] background creates real problems for people getting a fair trial.