A bail hearing this week involving one of two men alleged to be involved in a gay sex-and-drugs blackmail plot will be held in private — against the principle of open justice in the courts.

But lawyers said yesterday that the case for a private hearing, before a judge in chambers, was nonetheless compelling, to protect the identity of the victim, who is a minor member of the Royal Family.

The move is in line with the legal principle that the victims of blackmail should be protected from exposure. Sometimes an anonymity or gagging order would be sufficient. But in a high-profile case where it would be difficult to stop a name leaking out, the view was that such an order would be inadequate.

The Crown Prosecution Service, which is believed to have applied for the initial hearings — one in September and one in December — to be held in private, says in its own guidelines that a closed hearing is not justified purely on the ground of embarrassment. But despite the suspicion that because the Royal Family is involved it is receiving special treatment, the consensus is that this is not so and that it is the only possible way to proceed in an internet age.

Geraldine Proudler, a media lawyer with Olswang, said: “In a case like this, judges will be treading very carefully because they will want to know how these allegations play out — there is no suggestion yet as to whether there is any truth or not in them.” There were clear public policy grounds in ensuring that the victims of allegations were not revealed, she added.

“Courts bend over backwards in such cases to protect victims of blackmail, otherwise anyone could come along with a spurious allegation and the victim would be faced with having to pay up, or know that it will all be in the press,” she said.

Ms Proudler added that she had handled a blackmail case recently that was similarly held in chambers and every effort was made to remove any identifying detail from the court list.

Dan Tench, also a media lawyer at Olswang, said that the media now being in the internet age made a difference. “The case for a chambers hearing seems pretty compelling. You can’t properly discuss these matters without identifying the victim. And the first rule in blackmail cases is that the victim must be protected,” he said.

But Mike Dodd, the editor of Media Lawyer, said that the courts had ruled that bail hearings are normally held in public unless there is good reason for a private hearing. “One would not normally expect anything to be at the bail hearing which would identify the victim or victims and, even if it was, the contempt order in place prohibits its being published,” he said.

In a ruling last year Mr Justice Gray said that exceptions did exist to the principle that courts should take place in public: namely, where “a public hearing would undermine the purpose of the proceedings”. The press may contest it, but lawyers believe that this is a clear justification to hold the bail hearing in the royal blackmail case behind closed doors.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Hacker in final plea to stop extradition
• Lawyers? They're simply riveting . . .
• Companies slash legal spending