Is a good day for Sir Cliff a bad day for justice?
£210k payout over privacy breach... but fears ruling will now protect the guilty
INNOCENT Sir Cliff Richard got £210,000 in damages yesterday after a judge decided the BBC did breach his privacy.
But experts fear the ruling against naming him as a paedophile suspect could protect the guilty in other cases. One said: “Publishing names has led to victims coming forward.”
SIR Cliff Richard yesterday told of his enormous relief at winning a privacy battle with the BBC, but revealed the ordeal has left him emotionally scarred.
The pop veteran claimed he could no longer even walk past Wimbledon ball-boys for fear of being accused and said he is wary of getting too close to adoring fans wanting photos with him.
A judge decided the BBC was wrong to name Sir Cliff as a suspected paedophile during a police probe into the claims and awarded him £210,000.
But experts warned the ruling has serious consequences for press freedom as it could now stop newspapers and media outlets identifying people being investigated for any crime until the point that they are charged.
There are fears it will prevent other victims coming forward to aid police in building a case against a suspect.
High Court judge Mr Justice Mann ruled the decision to identify Sir Cliff as the man under investigation – in line with standard journalistic practice – breached his rights of privacy.
The BBC warned that created a new case law. Society of Professional Editors executive director Ian Murray said: “In many situations, the publishing of the name of someone under investigation has led to other witnesses and victims coming forward. It is vital the actions of police should be kept under scrutiny and this change in the law will make that much harder.”
Nicola Cain, of law firm RPC added: “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.
The BBC apologised to Sir Cliff for the “distress” caused after it filmed the South Yorkshire Police police raid on his home at Sunningdale, Berkshire, in August 2014. It came after an historical child sex assault allegation in Sheffield.
But director of news Fran Unsworth said: “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.
“We don’t believe this is compatible with liberty and press freedoms, something that has been at the heart of this country for generations.”
Veteran BBC journalist John Simpson added: “The judge found that though the BBC report was accurate, the BBC had acted unlawfully merely by naming Sir Cliff. How many crooks and scumbags will try to take advantage of this?”
Theresa May yesterday rejected calls for a “Cliff ’s Law” to ban suspects being named while under investigations.
The PM said: “There may be cases where actually the publication of a name enables other victims to come forward and to strengthen the case against an
individual.” In a 122-page judgment Mr Justice Mann said a “suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy relating to a police investigation”
He added: “I find Sir Cliff had privacy rights in respect of the police investigation and that the BBC infringed those rights without a legal justification. It did so in a serious way and sensationalist way.” Fans gathered outside the court and sang Sir Cliff ’s hit Congratulations as the weeping 77-year-old appeared at the gates.
The star later told how the case changed his life for ever. He said: “In Wimbledon there is a tunnel between Centre Court and Court One. I used to use it regularly. It went 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, even when I’m having photographs taken I try not to make contact.”
In an interview with ITV news, the singer told of the his “wonderful relief ” at winning the case but insisted BBC bosses have to “carry the can”.
He said: “If heads roll then maybe it’s because it was deserved. I still feel it’s another step in trying to make sure that innocent people are not put through what I’m put through.”
Host Julie Etchingham pressed him on fears victims of crime would not come forward if suspects are not named. He replied: “I’d rather 10 guilty people get away with it than one innocent person suffer.
“I will fight to the death against the abuse of the freedom of speech.”
Asked if he could forgive the BBC, Sir Cliff said he “probably will do”.
Mr Justice Mann said the singer is entitled to more cash for the financial impact the case has had on him. The star has spent £4million defending it.
He was awarded £190,000 plus £20,000 aggravated damages after the BBC nominated the story for a Scoop of the Year award. Police settled a claim last year to pay him £400,000.
THERE is no doubt the BBC’s coverage of a police raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home caused the singer considerable distress.
And the normally staid broadcaster erred on the side of sensationalism in its reporting.
For Sir Cliff this has been a difficult period, which at one point left his reputation and career on the line.
He has now been awarded substantial compensation, but the ruling has dangerous repercussions for press freedom.
The judgment against the BBC threatens to impose a blanket ban on naming any suspect in a police investigation.
This could make it impossible, for instance, to name a teacher suspected of child abuse charges even though he could possibly pose a risk to other children.
Moreover, it could seriously disadvantage police investigations as withholding names could prevent other victims of crime or witnesses coming forward. There will be much sympathy for Sir Cliff. You can understand why he wanted to seek redress for the ordeal he was put through.
It is shame it has come at the cost of a judgment that threatens the work of the police and the media. This may be a day of satisfaction for Sir Cliff, but it is dark day for journalism.