I read his articles as they came out, and did not figure out who the protected parties were. OTOH I am pretty sure I can figure at least two of them out after reading the judgement. It's possible that you could have figured out at the time if you were more familiar with the Dramatis Personae. But I do think it's plausible that he didn't think anyone would from his articles.
"[70] He wrote the “Yes, Minister” article after a health scare because “there were things I would not wish to die without having told”. There was thus clearly an intention to convey to the public information and opinion about the criminal proceedings and the background thereto. It is clear that he understood the risk inherent in the action he was taking, since he states that it was “a challenge” to work out how to convey the information “without being in contempt of court” (paragraph 54 of the affidavit). He used certain strategies seeking to avoid being in contempt, the main one of which was “to leave information that people would not understand the ramifications of but would after the trial or once further evidence emerged”. It is a reasonable inference that by using coded language he anticipated that if not at the time of the article, at least by the conclusion of the trial, the material would be understood beyond its ex-facie terms.In a tweet of 19 January, in direct reference to this article, he wrote:“I implore everybody who supports Independence –and indeed everybody with an interest in justice -to read this article very, very carefully indeed.Between the lines.”A comment was made by him in the 12 March article is to similar effect: “I am dependent on you reading this whole article with intelligence, and thinking “I wonder why he just told me that bit? Where was that relevant?""
