BBC Says High Court Made Errors In Law On Sir Cliff Richard’s Case

Brought to The Eye Of Media.Com’s attention by the Law Society Gazette the BBC expresses a dissatisfaction with the ruling, and expresses uncertainty about how future investigations can be reported.In a letter to the attorney general published today, the BBC called on the government to clarify the balance between privacy laws and the right to freedom of expression. Brought to The Eye Of Media.Com’s attention by the Law Society Gazette the BBC expresses a dissatisfaction with the ruling, and calls for clarity over the matter.

The BBC said it  had been advised that the High Court judge had made ‘a number of errors of law’. The Corporation added, the judge had  ’failed entirely to acknowledge’ previous judicial rulings stressing the public interest in allowing the media to name individuals.

The BBC  was ordered to pay £210,000 in damages for the invasion of Sir Cliff Richard’s privacy. It remains unclear whether the real issue in dispute here is the fact Cliff Richard’s name was mentioned by the BBC, or the fact his property was filmed in a manner that made him seem guilty of an offence before he had been charged or tried.

The letter  from the BBC to the government states ” we understand that the Court is likely to say that it is for Parliament, not the judiciary, to devise a statutory scheme setting out in detail the balance between competing public interests”.

The letter makes reference to a 2010 Supreme Court ruling by Lord Rodger in an appeal lodged  by the Guardian newspaper against anonymity orders on terrorism suspects as recognition ’at the highest judicial level that report. The ruling states the obligation placed on the media by articles 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Act for a structure of laws to be in place which will help  protect people from attacks on their lives or from assaults, not only by officers of the state but by other individuals.

Section 25 of the ruling highlights the need to protect the identity of a person in cases that can put their safety in peril, making this clearly set out provision appear to be the only grounds for exceptions.It states that the power of a court to make an anonymity order to protect a witness or party from a threat of violence arising out of its proceedings can be seen as part of that structure.

It adds that ”in an appropriate case, where threats to life or safety are involved, the right of the press to freedom of expression obviously has to yield. A newspaper does not have the right to publish information at the known potential cost of an individual being killed or maimed. The court may make an anonymity order to protect the individual, the ruling states.

It also states that the naming of a person involved in a public interest story has substantial value for the public’.

It states that, following the Cliff Richard judgment, news organisations will be very reluctant to name a suspect in a criminal investigation on a matter of public interest unless the police are prepared to say, on the record, that they have a good policing reason for doing so. ’There is a fundamental principle of press freedom at stake.’

Despite this, the letter says the BBC has been advised that ’it would be very difficult to persuade the Court of Appeal to isolate the issues of principle from the judge’s findings as to the conduct of the BBC in this case. We understand that the court is likely to say that it is for parliament, not the judiciary, to devise a statutory scheme setting out in detail the balance between competing public interests’.

It calls on the government to ’consider the merits of conducting a review of the state of the law on these issues, including an assessment of the need for primary legislation which will protect the right to report properly and fairly criminal investigations, and to name the person under investigation’.

The BBC has agreed to pay £850,000 towards Sir Cliff Richard’s legal costs.