Convicted criminals often take issue with details of their offending being made public.

But as KentOnline’s crown court reporter Julia Roberts explains, justice must be seen to be done – and publicity is a vital deterrent…

I recall a judge once remarking that 'publicity is part of the punishment' when a barrister spoke of the fear his client had of being 'named and shamed' by the press.

That was perhaps never felt so strongly than recently when a man guilty of downloading indecent images of children appeared for sentencing.

Unfortunately for him, his hearing was one chosen by a group of female students and their tutor to attend.

Like most cases that appear on crown court lists, the only available information is the name of the defendant and the type of hearing expected to take place.

So it is often pot luck as to what anyone, including the press, will hear on any given day.

Well this day, if not already bad enough for the defendant as he waited to hear his fate on the indecent images charges, became even more excruciating when those students chose his courtroom.

Sitting in the dock, he was just a couple of metres away from a public gallery packed out with the young students.

It's often said by defence legal teams that their clients are full of shame - and judging by the look on this man's face, that may have been an understatement.

For as the explicitly shocking and horrifying details of his offences were read out, his sense of embarrassment was palpable as his face flushed deep red and he shielded his eyes from view.

At the conclusion of the 30-minute hearing the defendant, having been spared jail, made a very swift exit from the courtroom and away from the gaze of the public onlookers.

One sincerely hopes that even if his arrest and prosecution were not enough themselves to deter him from such sick offending in the future, then at least the shame of his criminality being made public has had the desired punitive and salutary effect.

As for being 'named and shamed', many are not happy when details of their misdemeanours are published by the media.

Just a few days ago, a complaint was made by a friend of a man involved in trouble outside an Ashford pool bar, citing it was unfair to report his case due to his poor mental health.

Those same mental health difficulties, however, were used in his defence - as is so often the case - in a bid to lessen any punishment the court was considering.

People may complain it's 'a disgrace' - as this one did - when their friends and family are in the public eye in such a way, but isn't that of their own doing? Isn't the 'disgrace' the criminal behaviour, not the reporting of it?

Plus, many appearing in court these days cite poor mental health as an explanation for their criminal behaviour. Hearing a defendant has anxiety, ADHD, depression, autism, etc, is not unusual - in fact, it's almost the norm. If mental health were an excuse for not reporting, there could be very little to report!

We also have to bear in mind that many people suffer with psychological problems and don't resort to crime, so why should the fact an offender has similar issues be used to 'protect' them from publicity?

We all know the famous saying: 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.'

Well, maybe there's another: 'If you don't want the shame, don't be to blame.'