THERE was a time when a key element of British justice was the public shaming of miscreants. Wrongdoers and ne'er-do-wells could be seen languishing in the stocks or lambasted on the pillory, as people exacted their very public revenge.

These days, of course, it's all done much more discreetly. Judges mete out punishments in hushed courtrooms before defendants are whisked away to be detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure, or set at liberty.

Those suspected of crimes are, quite rightly, allowed to go about their business provided they adhere to certain conditions.

In recent years, however, the introduction of the electronic tag has slightly altered this scenario. The tags are put in place so police can keep track of suspects' movements. They are chunky items and, as such, are a very public symbol of suspected wrongdoing. They have, of course, become a source of twisted pride among some wearers, who are generally young and male.

Which brings us to the case of 18-year-old Natasha Hughes. Miss Hughes, who is to stand trial in December on a charge of assault causing grievous bodily harm, has admitted breaching the terms of her bail curfew. As a result, prosecutors wanted her to wear a tag.

Her lawyer, however, argued that she should not be forced to wear the device as she "dresses in a feminine way". Electronic tags, it would seem, do not match skirts.

What nonsense. Wearing a skirt is no reason to be given preferential treatment. If Miss Hughes had not wanted to be considered for a tag she should not have breached her bail conditions in the first place.