Express & Star comment: Sir Cliff ruling may endanger free press
At first sight, the judge ruling against the BBC for its treatment of Sir Cliff Richard appears to be an ‘open and shut’ case.
The post-Savile Beeb – desperate to assuage any perceived mistakes of the past – was quick to give full coverage as police swooped on the pop star’s home following an unsavoury allegation.
The coverage, which was filmed from a helicopter hovering above the pop star’s apartment, was coordinated between the broadcaster and the police in advance after the BBC had received a tip-off.
As everyone now knows, the search came to nothing and Sir Cliff was never arrested or charged. His reputation emerged unscathed.
Only it didn’t.
For a period of time after the story broke, Sir Cliff was wrongly bracketed with other public figures on whom the finger of suspicion had been pointed.
The 77-year-old family favourite said his mental and physical health suffered and he was left in ‘creative limbo’ for two years following the incident.
According to the pop star, he has suffered ‘profound and long-lasting damage’.
Despite his innocence, the damage in Sir Cliff’s mind – and in the minds of others – was already done.
For the BBC to then add insult to injury by submitting the story for a ‘scoop of the year’ award is utterly baffling.
Now, the publicly-funded broadcaster has been ordered to pay £210,000 for breaching Sir Cliff’s privacy.
Undoubtedly, the bigger cost will come when the bill for legal costs lands at the organisation’s door.
BBC bosses insist they thought long and hard about their coverage of the raid, but their actions have opened up the possibility of a very worrying consequence for the freedom of the press in this country.
The ruling against the Beeb provides case law which could in future be used by individuals who, unlike Sir Cliff, really do have something to hide.
The BBC is looking to appeal the ruling, and hopefully the broadcaster will be successful.
By all means, compensate Sir Cliff, but care must be taken when it comes to setting a precedent.
The consequences may not be as positive for the principles of open justice as the judge in this case may have imagined.
Remember – the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
