Sir Cliff Richard has been in the news lately after having won a significant award of damages in a claim against the BBC and South Yorkshire Police. The superstar was arrested two years ago and his home was searched in relation to an allegation of historic sexual abuse. Shortly before his house was searched a BBC journalist received an anonymous tip off that Sir Cliff was being investigated, and the police agreed to notify the journalist of when the search would take place.
The raid on Sir Cliff’s home was filmed from a helicopter and many of us will remember seeing the broadcast on the BBC. The coverage was even put forward for “Scoop of the Year” at the Royal Television Society Awards. However, although the allegation was investigated for two years no charges were ever brought against Sir Cliff. As a celebrity very much in the public eye, the ordeal understandably caused him significant distress and had some serious consequences, even though he was never charged or found guilty of any offence.
In the digital age, what was once gossip in the local pub can spread like wildfire over social media and Sir Cliff faced this, plus unwelcome allegations and even a reported attempt at blackmail from a third party. As a high profile figure, he was also potentially at risk of losing contracts including a book deal he had negotiated prior to the allegation being made public.
Press Freedom and Personal Privacy
In the UK, there is no automatic right to privacy but your privacy can be protected in a number of ways. One way is a claim in damages under the Data Protection Act 1998 (now replaced by the General Data Protection Regulations 2018) for the unauthorised disclosure of personal and/or sensitive information to third parties, and the other is under the Human Rights Act 1998. There are two conflicting rights enshrined in law – the right to freedom of expression (often used by the media), and the right to respect for private and family life.
Sir Cliff brought a claim against the Police and the BBC on the basis of unlawful disclosure of sensitive data and a breach of his right to respect for his private and family life. The Police settled out of court for £400,000 but the BBC defended the claim on the basis that they considered the report to be in the public interest. The trial was therefore mainly to decide whether the BBC should be liable and if so, in what proportion.
Mr Justice Mann decided that whilst the BBC and the Police were both liable, the majority of that liability (65%) should be placed on the BBC. The BBC had allegedly implied to the Police that if details of the intended search were not shared then there would be a report on the allegation prior to the search taking place, which the Police believed might have undermined their enquiries.
Sir Cliff was awarded damages of £210,000. Of this, £190,000 was assessed to be a sum in “general damages” for the distress and damage the report caused to Sir Cliff’s reputation and the detrimental effect the report had had on his life over a two-year period. Sir Cliff was awarded £20,000 in “aggravated damages” on the basis that the BBC put the report forward to win an award. This was a kick in the teeth for Sir Cliff given that the allegation came to nothing.
Sir Cliff was also awarded “special damages”, the amount of which has yet to be decided. In his summary, Mr Justice Mann commented that:
“The special damages are certain specific claims arising out of what are said to be particular financial effects flowing from the infringement.”
These included the costs he incurred in taking legal action to stop the allegations being recycled and added to online – particular to Sir Cliff because as a high-profile figure, it was inevitable that the allegations would be discussed widely.
Comment
Overall, whilst in some respects Sir Cliff has been vindicated and fairly compensated for what must have been a torrid time for him, the outcome of this case has been seen to place further restrictions on the media. In reality, whilst this may set a precedent against the media reporting on allegations concerning high profile figures, the key factor was the fact that the report was not genuinely in the public interest. The investigation might have been “of interest to the gossip-monger”, said Mr Justice Mann, but it was not a case of genuine public interest – the accusation of historic abuse was reportedly a one-off occurrence and there was no suggestion that Sir Cliff had committed any other misdemeanours.
How Nelsons Can Help
For any advice or additional information on the subjects discussed in this article, please call a member of expert Dispute Resolution team on 0800 024 1976 or contact us via the online form.