Nigella Lawson won't be prosecuted for drugs

Nigella Lawson won't be prosecuted for drugs



We looked at the position of Nigella Lawson in relation to her alleged cocaine use in a previous post about the privilege against self-incrimination.

Well, to nobody’s surprise, it was announced on 27th January 2014 that Ms Lawson would not be facing any action from the police in relation to this.

This decision was taken by the police on ‘public interest grounds’ which would seem absolutely right looking at the CPS policy on prosecuting suspected offenders.

An additional point that the Metropolitan Police said was :

There are serious public interest concerns about the message any prosecution would send out to potential witnesses and victims in the future.

Whilst witnesses clearly cannot simply admit to any offence under oath without consequences, this has to be balanced with the requirement for victims and witnesses to tell the truth.

Further police activity may deter victims from being candid with police and in court for fear of future investigation.”

Common sense in action – good to see.

Dan is a barrister at 2 Dr. Johnson’s Buildings practising in crime.


  1. Absolute rubbish. Clearly she is high profile and very rich and this has deterred the Police and CPS from taking action. If you believe Justice is blind and treats everyone the same then you’re in cloud cuckoo land

    • I would argue that marriage to some people is so intolerable that domestic goddesses resort to Class A drugs. Working class girls have to rely on Lambrini.

      • If her marriage was so bad then why did she not seek a divorce? No excuse for taking class A drugs;irresponsible and sending out a wrong message. I suspect some gender bias here and she herself has done a good job in portraying herself as a victim.

  2. Walking away from abusive relationships is not easy that’s why she didn’t. Abusers are controlling, manipulative and can manage to persuade their victim/prey that the abuse which is being heaped on them is entirely their own fault. That’s why she didn’t seek divorce. And I saw the evidence of abuse, splashed over my Sunday papers, the internet, the tv, pictures of him throttling her. She did not portray herself as a victim. She was actually a victim. It is important not to lose sight of this.

    • Well said, l-e-s! A very clear and compelling summary (whereas Mr W throws suppositions around like confetti at a 1970s wedding, with accusations of gender bias mixed in pell mell with alleged social bias and the insinuation that her wealth has in some way protected her. If that’s ‘protection’, no thanks!).