Sir Cliff Richard has won his privacy case against the BBC, with High Court judge Mr Justice Mann awarded the singer an initial £210,000 in damages for what the judge described as “a serious invasion" of privacy.
The veteran singer said he was "choked up" at the judgement, adding: "It's wonderful news."
Despite the ruling, the BBC said it is looking at an appeal when it has had time to review the lengthy judgement, stating that “journalists acted in good faith,” despite evidence to the contrary.
The 77-year-old pop star took legal action against the BBC over broadcasts of a police raid at his apartment in Sunningdale, Berkshire, in August 2014. A helicopter was used to film the raid, of which the singer was unaware as he was in the Algarve at the time, and named the singer as being under investigation for alleged sex offences.
Officers were investigating an allegation made by a man who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by the singer at an event in Sheffield in 1985.
The BBC’s director of news and current affairs, Fran Unsworth, apologised to Sir Cliff, saying that, "In retrospect, there are things we would have done differently," adding that the case marked a change in press freedoms and the public’s right to know.
Mr Justice Mann said the BBC had infringed Sir Cliff's right to privacy in a "serious" and "sensationalist" way and that this case was not a “genuine public interest,” although would be of interest to gossip mongers.
Sir Cliff, who clearly was not in court for the money, was awarded £190,000 damages and £20,000 in aggravated damages.
South Yorkshire Police already had agreed to pay £400,000 after settling a claim the singer brought against the force.
Due to the BBC’s actions, licence fee payers now have to pay 65% of the £190,000 and South Yorkshire Police the balance. The case has cost the singer an estimated £4 million.
The judge found the use of footage taken from a helicopter and naming Sir Cliff as a suspect amounted to breaches of his privacy.
The BBC claims the judgement is bad news for reporters and the news media as people in police investigations, save in exceptional circumstances, now are entitled to have the matter kept private and not to be named by the media.
Sir Cliff’s lawyer, Gideon Benaim, said the singer's motivation was "not for personal gain" but to "right a wrong" as the singer, "never expected his privacy and reputation would be tarnished in this way."
He said his client had offered to settle for reasonable damages and an apology, but the BBC had been "defiant."
Sir Cliff said would not comment further, "It's going to take a while to get over the whole emotional factor."
Comments
In one of today's UK papers Cliffy is telling us that "He will never be alone with kids again". Apart from (adult) fans, all his adult life he has been surrounded by PA's, managers, lawyers, musicians, singers at al So what kind of parent saw the need to leave Cliffy (as with J Saville) alone with their 'kid' at all; then ignored their distress afterwards?
It suggests nothing of the sort. The judge is yet to assess & award further damages to the Plaintiff for loss of earnings caused by the BBC’s wholly unwarranted actions, which may well dwarf the already awarded damages for ‘serious invasion of privacy’. As our Editor states, this is an initial award of damages only. Additionally, there will be a massive award against the BBC for Sir Cliff’s costs. I wholeheartedly agree with the historical summary of precedence relating to damages for invasion of privacy in the previous comment by ‘Lawyer A’.
It is a great pity that some people are still prepared to act as judge, jury & executioner in this case despite the lack of any credible evidence. Btw, I am not particularly a fan of Sir Cliff. I did however despise the BBC’s unacceptable reporting of this matter and am very pleased to see them so heavily and deservedly criticised by the judge.
I disagree.
In May 2015, in a “ground-breaking judgment” handed down by Mr Justice Mann at the High Court, the Mirror was ordered to pay eight victims of phone hacking a total of £1.2 million. Awards varied from £72,500 for Lauren Alcorn to £260,000 for actress Sadie Frost.
These awards comfortably exceed the previous largest award of damages for invasion of privacy, in Max Mosley's case against News of the World, of £60,000.
Sir Cliff’s award reflects the judge's wholehearted condemnation of the BBC’s error and attitude, and is at the very top of what is possible to award under the British justice system.