Sir Cliff paid £700,000 by police after raid tip-off to BBC
SIR CLIFF RICHARD has been paid more than £700,000 by police after they tipped off the BBC about an investigation into alleged historic sex offences, it emerged as he began legal action against the corporation, which could result in multi-million pound payouts.
The 77-year-old singer is demanding that the BBC pay him aggravated damages, including the advance for an autobiography shelved when they “shattered” his reputation by naming him as being under investigation for an alleged sex offence involving a minor dating back to 1985.
As the trial at the High Court began, it emerged that if Sir Cliff wins he will seek £278,261 for legal costs, £108,500 for PR fees and an undisclosed sum for the “substantial non-recoverable advance” agreed for his autobiography, which was due to be published in 2015.
His lawyers say that the book My Life, My Way is “no longer viable” and that he is entitled to aggravated damages because the BBC have “rubbed salt in the wound” by refusing to apologise.
It also emerged that when South Yorkshire Police settled the allegations against them they agreed to pay Sir Cliff £700,000 as well as his legal fees. They have apologised and accepted that their conduct was “unlawful”.
The legal fees have not been decided but the police note that by June 2017 costs against both defendants were already in excess of £1million.
Justin Rushbrooke QC said that the BBC had reported the search in the most “prominent and sensational way” simply because they were desperate for the “scoop”.
Dan Johnson, their North of England reporter, had also told bosses that he had police “over the barrel” as he had a tip that Sir Cliff was being investigated.
The BBC deny invasion of privacy and breach of the Data Protection Act, arguing that the claim, the first of its kind, is an affront to the principles of freedom of speech and that they accurately reported a story which was “a matter of high public interest”.
“It is hard to encapsulate in words the sense of panic and powerlessness that must have been induced when he realised that the BBC were relaying highly sensitive and damaging information [about him] – all based on an allegation of serious criminal conduct which he knew to be false,” Mr Rushbrooke said.
The Metropolitan Police investigated the allegations against Sir Cliff generally and found no evidence to support them and it was announced he would face no charges in June 2016.
The BBC deny the police’s claim that they “pressurised” them into handing over the information. The day before officers searched Sir Cliff ’s home in Sunningdale, Berks, they phoned the BBC to tell them it would take place, allowing them to have satellite trucks, reporters and helicopters in place.
BBC legal documents state that what was published was accurate and a legitimate matter of public interest.
Sir Cliff is due to give evidence today.
We sympathise with Sir Cliff Richard. The police disclosed that he was the subject of an investigation into an allegation of historic sexual abuse and ensured the BBC was on hand to film a raid on his home while he was abroad. South Yorkshire constabulary has previously accepted it was in the wrong and paid the veteran singer substantial damages of about £700,000 in compensation for the “profound and long-lasting” impact on his reputation.
Sir Cliff is now taking action against the BBC in the High Court claiming a breach of his privacy; but this raises different questions altogether.
While the police acknowledged a breach in their duty to keep investigations confidential until an arrest has been made, the same considerations do not apply to news gathering organisations.
The law does not preclude newspapers or broadcasters from disclosing that a police investigation is taking place. Earlier this week, for instance, a television news team accompanied Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner, on a series of raids around London aimed at gun gangs. The action resulted in several arrests.
The BBC is arguing that there was a legitimate public interest in reporting the raid, whereas Sir Cliff ’s lawyers maintain it was a breach of privacy under human rights laws. They say the public interest override does not apply because there was complicity between the police and the BBC, and there was nothing to substantiate the allegation made against him. Moreover, the BBC used a helicopter to pry into his home and broadcast the footage for hours.
At the time there were suspicions that the police were on a “fishing expedition” – happy for the news to get out in the expectation that other aggrieved parties would come forward. Nonetheless, there are wider issues at stake here that go beyond this particular case.
Effectively the High Court is being invited to extend the boundaries of what constitutes privacy by interpreting human rights laws in a way that will further circumscribe the freedom of the press. This may end up in the Supreme Court. Historically, English common law did not recognise a general right of privacy; and while Sir Cliff may have cause for his grievance, the courts should be careful not tip the balance away from countervailing rights upholding freedom of expression.