Cliff Richard ruling bad for free speech

The high court decision in Britain in favour of Sir Cliff Richard and against the BBC highlights restrictions on the freedom of the press. The corporation’s use of a helicopter to film a search of the singer’s Berkshire home in August 2014, following a tip-off from police, attracted much comment at the time (in 2016 Sir Cliff was told by prosecutors that no charges would be brought).

The police and the BBC have both apologised. But Justice Mann ruled that the simple fact of having named Sir Cliff at all broke the law. His judgment raises questions on what reporters are allowed to say – and the public is allowed to know. This is ominous, and the BBC is right to consider an appeal despite the enormous bill it already faces, with £210,000 (NZ$404,000) damages awarded so far, and costs expected to be in seven figures. Sir Cliff’s is not the only recent case to test this area of law, specifically how the right to a private life is balanced against the right to free expression.

As news organisations, it is our job to tell people what is going on. That is why journalists from the BBC to The Sun have mounted such an unusual display of unity in their horrified reaction to this ruling. The idea that the activities of the police could be placed off limits to reporters is anathema.

Privacy matters, and The Guardian believes in it. Open justice – a system in which the public can see what happens – matters too.