Distress, humiliation anxiety and illness ...Sir Cliff’s agony in his own words

IN a harrowing 2,300-word account of his ordeal, Sir Cliff Richard revealed yesterday how the BBC’s film of a police raid on his home plunged him into a ‘long period of distress, humiliation, anxiety and illness’.

For nearly two years, he said in a written submission to the House of Lords, he suffered from ‘episodes of depression’.

An ‘indelible mark’ was left on his reputation after the BBC named him in connection with an unfounded allegation of historical sexual abuse.

Here, in his own words, is Sir Cliff’s story. AS many of you may know, on August 14, 2014, my home in Berkshire was raided by the police, At the time of the raid, I was in Portugal. This raid related to a single allegation of an alleged incident of historic sexual abuse that supposedly took place in the 1980s.

I should state that I am innocent and the supposed incident in question did not take place. I am also innocent of the further allegations that were made after the raid was televised and details of the raid and my name were published in the media. The circumstances in which this raid took place were far from usual. Significantly, as I have since learnt, they were as follows: (a) The police and BBC closely cooperated with one another prior to the raid. Accordingly, while I was given no advance notice of the raid, the BBC were made aware of many of the details of the raid beforehand including where and when it was going to take place. (b) The BBC were wrongly in possession of unarguably sensitive private information, including detailed information about the investigation and raid. (c) The BBC broadcast and published those details in the form of a sensational “exclusive” story, giving it massive prominence. (d) This in turn inevitably led to widespread, saturation coverage of the story by other publishers in this country and around the world.

This all happened, it should not be forgotten, at a time when I had not been interviewed by the police or arrested, let alone charged or convicted of any offence.

In fact, I have never been arrested or charged.

On the morning of the raid, BBC camera crews and journalists were positioned to capture the moment the police arrived at my apartment.

The police and BBC even communicated in the period immediately before the raid to ensure that the BBC had the best possible angles for their cameras and were ready for the raid to begin.

Amongst other audio-visual material, the BBC also broadcast footage from a helicopter which included being able to see police officers rifling through my possessions inside my home.

It was like watching my home being broken into – on television. This footage was replayed throughout the day and it featured as a leading story on the BBC’s main news bulletins.

It is not surprising that it was immediately picked up much more widely. It basically travelled around the world in an instant.

The fact that the BBC, with the police’s co-operation, were in possession of and able to publicise private information about the allegation and the police investigation, meant that those matters were put into the public domain, generating public speculation, before I had even had an opportunity to understand exactly what was being alleged against me, or to defend myself, or to assist the police with their enquiries.

Surely, that cannot be right. Given these events, I do not think that I had the benefit, which everyone is entitled to, of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yes, some will appreciate the difference between an allegation and guilt, but in reality many more will assume that “there is no smoke without fire”.

I don’t believe that it can be genuinely or sincerely argued that my standing and good name haven’t been badly damaged as a result of the police’s and BBC’s conduct.

This is quite apart from the distress, embarrassment and humiliation I have been caused. The decision of the police to provide, or at least to confirm, my name to the BBC and to provide them with other information about the raid, and the BBC’s decision to publicise my name, the raid and other details about the police’s investigation in such a sensational and intrusive manner, effectively deprived me of that basic legal right.

There is no getting around the fact that it will leave an indelible mark on

‘I was given no notice. It was like watching my home being broken into – on live television’

‘The stress was physical, not just mental ... I suffered episodes of depression’

my reputation which feels to me completely wrong and unfair, given that there was no substance to the allegations whatsoever, and that the CPS determined that “no further action” was needed.

In the meantime, I am all too conscious that while I have the resources to seek the best available advice in relation to these issues, many others will not.

For this reason, I feel obliged to raise these matters so that hopefully no other innocent person will have to suffer in the way that I did.’ Sir Cliff then spelt out why he believes the law should be changed so that people suspected of sexual offences remain anonymous before charge – unless there are exceptional circumstances – with criminal sanctions for anyone breaching the rules. Protecting the anonymity of suspects ‘would go some considerable way to ensure that what happened to me in terms of illness, distress, stress and unwarranted reputational damage never happens to anyone else’, the singer said. ‘It is no exaggeration to say that on August 14, 2014, everything in my life changed. Unless this is something which a person has been through themselves, it is difficult to put into words the immediate physical reaction experienced when in my case I learnt that my home was being raided by police officers, and, that the BBC was on the scene with a helicopter filming overhead.

the situation was made more distressing by the fact that I had to sit by and helplessly watch police officers go through my possessions. I just collapsed.

the fact of the raid; the false insinuation that I was guilty, knowing that I was innocent; and of course the worldwide press coverage that followed the BBC’s decision to cover the raid caused me a long period of distress, humiliation, anxiety and illness.

As you would expect, I had trou-thought ble carrying on with life as normal. the stress was physical and not just mental.

Over the course of the 22 months of the investigation, I suffered from episodes of depression.

As well as my faith, I am fortunate to have an incredible support network which, I have no doubt, I could not have done without. But I felt as though I was in a hole and I had no means of escape.

It was the first thing that I of in the morning, and the last at night. It takes a horrible toll on you.

Some of this was, of course, down to the fact of being under investigation itself, but the fact that the investigation and my status as a suspect had all been made public, and in such an extreme and sensational way, made it all the worse.

Quite apart from the impact that the widely-circulated reports have had upon my career and my reputation, I struggled on a daily basis to find the motivation to continue trying to live as normally as possible, to explain to people that I was innocent and that I had never assaulted anyone.

I felt like I was starting at a disadvantage, because of the publicity. It was like playing “catch-up”, trying to explain to my family, friends and to the media that I was innocent. I had to temper an overwhelming desire to explain my innocence to the world with the advice I was receiving from my lawyers – to refrain from commenting given the fact that there was an ongoing criminal investigation.

In reality I didn’t even have that much information to go on anyhow. Often the media seemed to know more than I did. It was an impossible situation to be in.’ Sir Cliff said that in circumstances in which the police may need to name a suspect and actively seek the media’s help – for example, where a suspect is known to pose a danger to the public – a chief constable or other chief officer should have the power to take this ‘unusual step’. But otherwise, if a person is not charged they should never be publicly identified, he said. ‘It is important to bear in mind that when the CPS decide not to charge someone, and to make a public announcement to that effect, they only ever announce that there is “insufficient evidence” to prosecute the person in question. the CPS don’t say that someone is innocent, or that the allegations were false.

One of the problems with this is that, if by this time the person has already been widely identified as a suspect, the CPS’s statement will not provide sufficient vindication of that person’s damaged reputation. It will not restore his or her good name. the cloud of suspicion will never be removed entirely.

By contrast, if my proposals were adopted, there would very rarely be any need for the CPS to make such an announcement.

Providing for anonymity until charge in alleged sexual cases will serve to protect those who find themselves under police investigation, possibly quite wrongly, from the glare of unfair and damaging publicity.

‘If I can help bring about change, knowing that it will help others, even though I am all too aware that my own prior reputation will never be fully recovered (something I find devastating at this stage in my life), it will make everything that I’ve been through feel just a little bit more palatable.