Sir Cliff’s win: a dangerous precedent?

Sir Cliff Richard was on holiday in Portugal in August 2014 when he got a call from a friend, warning him that the police were outside his home in Berkshire, said The Daily Telegraph. Soon after, he learnt that he’d been accused of assaulting a minor at a Billy Graham rally in 1985 – and when he switched on the TV, footage of police ransacking his apartment was all over the news. It turned out that a BBC reporter had got wind of the fact that Sir Cliff was under suspicion and, in return for not reporting on it then, South Yorkshire Police had tipped him off about the search. Desperate to make the best of its scoop, the BBC’S editors had decided not just to report the facts, but to summon a helicopter to film the raid in progress. Thus the world came to know that the pop star was suspected of child abuse – yet he’d not even been arrested at that point, and never was. Last week, following a £3.4m legal battle, he won a landmark privacy case against the BBC.

You can imagine the excitement at the BBC, said Dominic Lawson in The Sunday Times. In the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, its editors had managed to break the story of another alleged celebrity abuser. “Congratulations and jubilations,” one emailed to another, in a “mordant” reference to Sir Cliff’s 1968 hit. In his ruling, Mr Justice Mann was right to condemn its reporting as sensationalist, said The Times. More appropriate to an embassy siege, the use of a helicopter gave the story a sense of gravitas and urgency it did not merit. And you have to sympathise with the 77-yearold star: his name has been “smeared across the world”. Once a great hugger “of other people’s grandchildren”, he says he is now too scared to go near children. Yet this ruling sets an alarming precedent, by suggesting that just to name a suspect will normally be a breach of their right to privacy. “Identifying suspects in the media can be crucial to building a prosecution case, as it can prompt other victims to come forward.” Moreover, the freedom to report on the police’s activities is an essential safeguard against police malpractice.

I don’t buy it, said Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail. If suspects felt the police had been heavy-handed, they could give the media permission to report on it. And naming suspects can bring out fantasists and liars, as well as genuine victims. Of course, the media will fight for their freedom to report; but the mere allegation of child abuse, in particular, can ruin a person’s reputation. Until the police have enough evidence for an arrest warrant, at least, it is surely reasonable to demand the press hold back.