Cliff Richard seeks ‘very substantial’ BBC payout

● Singer suing broadcaster over privacy breach from police raid

0 Sir Cliff Richard arrives at the Rolls Building in London for the start of his court case Sir Cliff Richard’s lawyers have told a High Court judge that the singer should get “very substantial” compensation because BBC coverage of a police raid on his home was a “flagrant” breach of his privacy rights.

Justin Rushbrooke QC, the barrister leading Sir Cliff’s legal team, said BBC coverage of a police search of the singer’s apartment in Sunningdale, Berkshire, in August 2014 following an allegation of sexual assault was a “very serious invasion” of privacy.

Mr Rushbrooke complained of television cameras being used to “spy into someone’s home”.

He outlined Sir Cliff ’s case at the start of a trial at the High Court in London yesterday.

The 77-year-old singer is suing the BBC over coverage of the police raid. Sir Cliff, who denied wrongdoing and was not charged with any offence, said he suffered “profound and long-lasting damage” as a result of coverage.

The BBC said its coverage of the police raid on Sir Cliff’s apartment was accurate and in good faith.

A BBC spokesman previously said that the station had reported Sir Cliff’s “full denial of the allegations at every stage”.

Lawyers representing BBC bosses told Mr Justice Mann the raid was a “matter of legitimate public interest”.

Mr Rushbrooke told the judge in a written statement: “In a nutshell, it is Sir Cliff’s case that the BBC’S coverage of the search was an invasion – indeed a very serious invasion – of his privacy for which there was no lawful justification.

“The fact and the details of the investigation, which the BBC published to the world at large, along with the video footage of his apartment being searched, were private information and there was no public interest in the disclosure of this information to the millions of viewers and website readers around the world to whom it was published.

“For strong public policy reasons, persons who are under investigation but have not been charged with any offence should not be publicly named other than in exceptional circumstances – circumstances which were not present in this case.”

He said the broadcasts were “hugely intrusive”.