May warning over Sir Cliff privacy ruling
PM says giving suspects anonymity might stop other alleged victims coming forward to police
Theresa May has warned that suspects must not be given blanket anonymity in the wake of a landmark ruling that the BBC breached Sir Cliff Richard’s privacy. Mr Justice Mann ordered that the corporation pay the entertainer £210,000 in damages for broadcasting a police raid on his home in relation to an allegation of a historic child sex offence. The BBC is considering appealing, as the case could have a chilling effect on press freedom.
THERESA MAY has warned that criminal suspects must not be given blanket anonymity in the wake of a landmark ruling that the BBC breached Sir Cliff Richard’s privacy.
Mr Justice Mann ordered that the corporation pay the entertainer £210,000 in damages for its broadcasting of a police raid on the singer’s home in relation to an allegation of a historic child sex offence, for which he has never been arrested.
The BBC is looking at an appeal since the ruling as it stands could have a chilling effect on press freedom, with legal experts warning the decision is a further step towards a privacy law that will stop the media from naming suspects in all but exceptional instances.
Sir Cliff, meanwhile, said he would “fight to the death” against what he called “abuse of the freedom of speech”. He said: “I’d rather 10 guilty people get away with it than one innocent person suffer. There is no reason for that.”
Campaigners and some MPS have called on the Government to go even further by introducing “Cliff ’s law”, banning the press from naming any suspects until they have been charged.
When asked if she would consider such a law, the Prime Minister said: “This is a difficult issue, it does have to be dealt with sensitively.
“There may well be cases where actually the publication of a name enables other victims to come forward and therefore to strengthen the case against an individual.”
Mr Justice Mann, sitting at the High Court in London, criticised the coverage in Sir Cliff’s case as “sensationalist”, saying: “Knowing that Sir Cliff was under investigation might be of interest to the gossip-mongers, but it does not contribute materially to the genuine public interest in the existence of police investigations in this area.”
The judge awarded Sir Cliff £190,000 to cover the “general effect” on his life plus £20,000 because the BBC had aggravated the damage by nominating the story for scoop of the year.
Lawyers say Sir Cliff, 77, could get more money when the judge decides how badly he has been left out of pocket at a later stage of litigation. Sir Cliff says the case has cost him £4million.
The BBC will have to pay 65 per cent and South Yorkshire Police, which admitted liability at an earlier hearing, will pay 35 per cent of any such award.
Sir Cliff had sued the BBC over broadcasts of a raid on his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire in August 2014, after an alleged child sex assault said to have taken place at a rally by the American evangelist Billy Graham, pictured below, at Sheffield United FC’S Bramall Lane stadium in 1985.
Sir Cliff strenuously denied the allegations and was never arrested or charged.
After the ruling Fran Unsworth, the director of news at the BBC, said it was looking at appealing because of the “significant principle” at stake. She said: “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 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...we don’t believe this is compatible with liberty and press freedoms; something that has been at the heart of this country for generations.”
In an interview with ITV, Sir Cliff said he wanted BBC bosses to take responsibility, adding: “If heads roll then maybe it’s because it’s deserved.”
He said his life had been shattered. “I’m sure I’ll recover,” he added. “There are aspects in my life I recognise now for instance. 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.”
‘It will make it harder to scrutinise police and it will undermine the principle of the public’s right to know’
The High Court’s decision to award Sir Cliff Richard substantial damages against the BBC for reporting a police raid on his home in 2014 marks a further dangerous erosion of press freedom. While we sympathise with the singer for the ordeal to which he was subjected, the fault lies with the police, not the media.
They had no need to stage such an intrusive search in order to investigate a single, unsubstantiated allegation of historic sex abuse. What were they expecting to find at Sir Cliff ’s house that would be relevant to such an inquiry? Had they arranged to meet him confidentially, they could quickly have established his innocence.
The heavy-handedness of their investigation was the principal cause of Sir Cliff ’s distress and South Yorkshire constabulary has paid him £400,000 in damages plus £300,000 in costs. However, it does not follow that the historic rights of the media to report freely should be circumscribed because of a botched police action.
Mr Justice Mann has effectively declared it unlawful for media organisations to name anyone under investigation by the police, establishing anonymity by case law through the extension of privacy provisions in the European Convention. However, free speech is also enshrined in the convention and is supposed to be given equal status. So why is it invariably trumped by privacy in the courts?
Meanwhile, on the unregulated internet, false allegations fly around the world trashing reputations. If responsible newspapers and broadcasters are constrained from reporting the facts then only the falsehoods will remain. This is a bad judgment that needs to be overturned.