We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
POP STAR CLIFF Richard has won his case taken against the BBC over its decision to broadcast a police raid on his home live on TV.
The UK High Court awarded him £210,000 (€235,000) damages to be paid by both the BBC and the South Yorkshire Police – you can read the full judgement here.
Richard, 75, took legal action against the BBC over coverage of a South Yorkshire Police raid on his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, in August 2014, following a child sex assault allegation.
The singer said previously that he was taking legal action after his reputation was “unnecessarily damaged”.
Today outside the court, Richard said:
I can’t really answer too many questions at the moment, it’s going to take a little while for me to get over the whole emotional factor and so I hope you’ll forgive me. I’ll talk to you some other time. Thank you very much.
The BBC has released a statement reacting to the verdict, saying that “on reflection there are things we would have done differently”, but said that it was also looking at an appeal.
It added: “However, the judge has ruled that the very naming of Sir Cliff was unlawful.
So even had the BBC not used helicopter shots or ran the story with less prominence, the judge would still have found that the story was unlawful; despite ruling what what we broadcast about the search was accurate.
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 winder principle of the public’s right to know. It will put decision making in the hands of the police.
In this morning’s judgement, handed down by Mr Justice Mann, it said that Richard “had privacy rights in respect of the police investigation and that the BBC infringed those rights without a legal justification” and that it did so “in a serious way and also in a somewhat sensationalist way”.
I have rejected the BBC’s case that it was justified in reporting as it did under its rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. I did not find it necessary to rule on the claim under the Data Protection Act. Sir Cliff therefore wins on the privacy point and has established liability.
The judge awarded basic general damages of £190,000, and an added £20,000 for nominating the live broadcast as in the Royal Television Society Awards.
The BBC’s nominated its story for an award at the Royal Television Society Awards as the ‘Scoop of the Year’ (which, incidentally, it did not win). I have found that that merits aggravated damages which I have assessed at £20,000.
In relation to the costs, the judgement says that the BBC said the costs should be split 80/20, with the majority paid by the South Yorkshire Police, while the police argued the costs should be paid in total by the BBC.
The judge rejected both of these suggestions:
“I have rejected both parties’ extreme cases but nonetheless decided that the BBC was much more responsible than SYP, and have determined that the damages for which both parties are responsible (which does not include the aggravated damages) ought to be borne 35%/65% as between SYP and the BBC respectively, principally on the footing that the BBC was a significantly greater contributor to the damage that was caused.”
Delighted for Cliff. He may be extremely annoying but no one deserves that.
Shameful and hypocritical behaviour from a tax payer funder organization which covered up internal child abuse for decades.
@Jimmy Coltrane: Media whorism certainly needs its neck pulled in. There’s is a big difference from investigative journalism and sensationalism.. The beeb preferred sensationalism and creating news rather than reporting.
@Martin Critten: I agree but sensationalism wins the day, look at Trump and Brexit.
@Jimmy Coltrane: shockingly low award. Should have been in the millions.
Good.
These #metoo type witch hunts have got to stop.
@Edward Smith: whilst I agree the #metoo has gotten out of control, I’m entirely sure this incident had anything to do with #metoo which started quite a while after this incident
@Joseph Dempsey: I said “type”.
@Edward Smith: yes!!! Stop all legitimate police investigations into the sexual assault of children…. WHAT?
@Edward Smith: You really are on the wrong side of everything.. It’s fascinating someone could be so misinformed.. Almost like it’s programmed into you.
@Rob Cahill: he’s a troll and not worth responding to. Lots of them on here who post comments purely to get a response. Ignore them.
@Edward Smith: Jimmy Tarbuck and Jim Davidson went through hell as well and they were totally innocent, the problem is mud sticks and the reporting just made it worse for Cliff…
BBC need to sort their own house where these things really happen/happened before trying to ruin the career’s of others for no good reason.
Delighted for him, always believed he was innocent & to do this & try ruin his career & reputation was wrong.. Good on u Sir Cliff!
@Veronica: cliff will do fine in rhis country…no sirs here
No Kings or Queens either but if Juan Carlos ever visits I think he should be called King Juan Carlos.
Well done cliffy ,what was done was a real violation of his human rights .absolutely disgraceful ,something one would expect from american tv
Good for him. BBC should be ashamed of themselves.
This is a very important ruling, as it restores the principle that a person must be regarded as innocent unless proven guilty. For this reason, the re-affirmation by the judge that the public naming of Cliff Richard by police and media (without Richard being convicted of anything) was unlawful, is hugely important in the interests of justice.
It is right that the BBC and the South Yorkshire Police were punished.
Congratulations cliff disgraceful what the BBC and the Yorkshire Police did
Copied from NAMAwinelake on Twitter – pretty interesting,
Cliff Richard privacy case: BBC to pay Cliff 65% of the £190k damages (police pay the other 35%) plus 100% of the £20,000 aggravated damages. Cliff likely to be a big loser; he says he’s spent £3.4m on his legal costs, and will get just a fraction back.
While I am glad for his vindication he has been lying and preaching to people a long time. Some of you might not remember him going on about how people should be celibate in the 80s. He was not celibate at the time and spent a long time denying he was gay and said his partner was just a friend.
@Kal Ipers: plenty of mistletoe n wine
@Kal Ipers: can you prove that he is gay or that he wasn’t celibate or are you just as bad as the BBC?
@Kal Ipers: Preaching? Really? I’ve read the opposite.
He’ll be off on another ‘summer holiday’, but he’s that tanned already I’d say he’s not often in England. Lo l
@Dermot Foley:
I think he’s already said that all the money will be going to charity.
@Dermot Foley: He will lose heavily on what he has paid for legal fees.
They treated Cliff like dirt and he was innocent, how can anyone undo that?
Oh these miss you BBc nights, are the loneliest..
have your say