‘I prayed every single night for four years that truth would out’
SIR CLIFF WINS BBC COURT BATTLE
SIR Cliff Richard was “choked up” yesterday after winning his privacy case against the BBC over its coverage of a police raid on his home.
The legendary singer, 77, was awarded £210,000 in damages by a High Court judge – and could get much more.
Sir Cliff hugged friends after the ruling as fans outside clapped and sang his hit song Congratulations.
He said: “I’m choked up. I can’t believe it. It’s wonderful news.”
Sir Cliff fought back tears as he stood next to a lawyer who read out a statement on his behalf.
The Summer Holiday star said it was “going to take a little while” as he was too emotional to talk and added: “I hope you will forgive me.”
Close friend Gloria Hunniford, who was at the ruling, revealed: “Cliff said some really poignant things. He said to me, ‘I prayed every single night for four years that truth will out’. That was a really important statement. He was so excited.”
The TV host said of his ordeal: “I don’t think he will truly get over it. I don’t think you get over four years of turmoil like that. He is such a lovely man. He is a good, honest man. I think he took it so much to heart.”
Aghast
Sir Cliff took legal action against BBC bosses over broadcasts of a South Yorkshire Police raid on his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, in August 2014, following a historic child sex assault allegation. He was never arrested or charged.
The star was at his home in Portugal during the raid and was aghast as the events unfolded on TV.
Mr Justice Mann said the BBC infringed the star’s privacy rights in a “serious and sensationalist way”.
Last night, an emotional Sir Cliff said that if heads were to roll at the BBC “it would be deserved”.
He said in a TV interview: “They [senior managers] have to carry the can. I don’t know how they are going to do it, but they’ll have to. If heads roll then maybe it’s because it was deserved. It’s too big a decision to be made badly. It was nonsense.”
He described the moment he saw police officers searching his home as “horrifying” and said he would have “rather been burgled”.
He added: “I will fight to the death against the abuse of the freedom of speech – what the BBC did was an abuse. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy. To me this was an anarchic thing to do.”
He also said the case had been distressing and that it was now difficult to be around children, adding he had resigned from one charity.
He added: “In Wimbledon there is a tunnel between Centre Court and Court One. I used to use it regularly to go and see the matches I was interested in on Court One and it went right past the ball boys’ dressing room.
“I won’t go there now. I won’t go anywhere near children. Why? I’ve spent my whole life hugging people’s grandchildren. But because of this thing now... there’s aspects of my life now, even when I’m having photographs taken I try not to make contact.”
Lawyer Gideon Benaim said the singer never expected, after 60 years in the public eye, to have his “privacy and reputation tarnished in such a way”. He said the BBC refused to apologise and insisted it had run a public interest story.
He said: “The case clearly confirms that individuals, including high-profile ones, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to police investigations.
“What transpired in August 2014 resulted from decisions taken by only a small number of people at the BBC.
“However, it was as a direct result of those decisions that the impact on Sir Cliff over the past four years was so profound.
“He never expected after 60 years in the public eye that his privacy and reputation would be tarnished
in this way, and that he would need to fight such a battle.
“Although he felt it necessary to pursue this case, and the sum awarded in damages is one of the highest ever in this area of law, Sir Cliff’s motivation was not for personal gain, as he knew all along that he would be substantially out of pocket no matter what.
“His aim has been to try to right a wrong and, to ensure as best he could, that no other innocent person would have to endure what he went through.”
Appeal
Mr Justice Mann said he had awarded Sir Cliff £190,000 special damages, to cover the “general effect” on his life, and an additional £20,000 because the BBC had aggravated the damage by nominating the story for an award.
The judge has yet to assess how much the BBC coverage has left the singer out of pocket.
Lawyers say that figure could be much larger than £210,000.
Mr Justice Mann said he would oversee a hearing relating to that aspect of the case in the near future.
Fran Unsworth, the BBC’s director of news, warned the corporation is considering an appeal. BBC’s Fran Unsworth yesterday A BBC boss described the ruling as a “dramatic shift press freedom” yesterday.
Fran Unsworth said it would affect every news outlet as it becomes more difficult to scrutinise police conduct.
Apologising for the distress caused to Sir Cliff, the corporation’s director of news and current affairs made it clear the BBC would appeal against the decision.
She said: “We are sorry for the distress that Sir Cliff has been through. We understand the very serious impact that this has had on him.
“We have thought long and hard about how we covered this story.
“On reflection, there are things we would have done differently, however the judge has ruled that the very naming of Sir Cliff was unlawful.
“So even had the BBC not used helicopter shots or ran the story with less prominence, the judge would still have found that the story was unlawful, judge’s against despite ruling that what we broadcast about the search was accurate.
“This judgment creates new case law and represents a dramatic shift against press freedom and the longstanding ability of journalists to report on police investigations, which in some cases has led to further complainants coming forward.
“This impacts not just the BBC but every media organisation.
“This isn’t just about reporting on individuals. It means police investigations and searches of people’s homes could go unreported and unscrutinised. It will make it harder to scrutinise the conduct of the police, and we fear it will undermine the wider principle of the public’s right to know.
“It will put decision-making in the hands of the police.”
Ms Unsworth added: “We don’t believe this is compatible with liberty and press freedoms, something that has been at the heart of this country for generations.
“For all of these reasons, there is a significant principle at stake. That is why the BBC is looking at an appeal.”
The ruling aroused fury among media commentators.
Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors, said: “The ruling to make it unlawful that anyone under investigation can be named is a major step and one that has worrying consequences for press freedom and the public’s right to know.
“It is vital that the actions of the police should be kept under scrutiny in a free society and this change in the law will make that much harder.”
Lawyer Nicola Cain, of law firm RPC, said: “This is a landmark judgment in many ways, all of which are bad for the media. The media is going to have to walk on eggshells when reporting on police investigations from now on.”