BBC admits coverage of Sir Cliff was intrusive
A SENIOR BBC executive admitted yesterday that TV coverage of the raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home was an intrusion into the singer’s privacy.
Fran Unsworth, the BBC’s director of news and current affairs, told a court the broadcaster aired the story because she felt the star’s right to privacy was outweighed by the public interest over the historical allegation of child sex abuse which he faced.
She admitted that she knew the story would cause Sir Cliff ‘distress’, but said there were ‘strong reasons’ to name him.
Giving evidence at the High Court yesterday, Miss Unsworth refused to admit that the BBC report was ‘disproportionately intrusive’ because of the ‘nature of who Sir Cliff is’.
Justin Rushbrooke QC, for Sir Cliff, asked her: ‘Do you accept what you did was highly intrusive into Sir Cliff’s privacy?’ She replied: ‘I do accept it was intrusive.’
Mr Rushbrooke then asked her: ‘ Do you accept it was disproportionately intrusive?’
Miss Unsworth replied: ‘ No, I don’t accept that because of the nature of who Sir Cliff is. It would have been impossible to report this story without it being an enormous story.’
She told the court: ‘I took the view, and still do, that we had a responsibility in the public interest to report this whilst still being sensitive to the position of Sir Cliff.’
Earlier in the day, she told how she ‘did query’ the deployment of a BBC helicopter which captured images of officers rummaging through Sir Cliff’s apartment in Sunningdale, Berkshire. She added that she set out strict rules about how any footage should be used – including that it should not be broadcast live.
After viewing the footage, Miss Unsworth concluded it was not ‘particularly intrusive’.
She said: ‘What I was thinking was that Sir Cliff was not in the property, that the shots through the window were of policemen and they were quite blurred. It didn’t strike me as intrusive.’
Sir Cliff ’ s lawyers are suing the BBC over coverage of the search of his flat in August 2014.
The 77-year- old claims the footage was a ‘very serious invasion’ of his privacy and that his reputation has been ‘forever tainted’.
The BBC says its reports were accurate and in good faith. The case continues.