BBC potential appeal re Cliff Richard

[IWannaSeeHowItEnds]

Aibu to think that the BBC, having had their arses handed to them this morning, have no business considering appeal against the judgement?
I don't agree with them spending even more of our money justifying their appallong behaviour.

The BBC is entitled to appeal, just as is the case with anyone involved in a court case. However, having read the judgement I don't think an appeal will achieve anything. The evidence given by senior news staff suggested they had lost sight of the distinction between things that are in the public interest and things that are interesting to the public. The statement today by Ms Unsworth, the BBC's Director of News, suggests she still hasn't got it and the statements by some such as the Society of Editors shows that they similarly don't understand the existing law or, indeed, the findings in this case. Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times, for example, has tweeted that "the police chose to put the issue in the public domain" which is directly contrary to the judge's findings.

A number of people on this thread have referred to West Yorkshire Police. They were not involved. The investigation concerned was carried out by South Yorkshire Police.

South Yorkshire Police are the most culpable over this in my opinion, though the BBC not without blame

The judge disagreed with you which is why the BBC has to pay 65% of the total damages (i.e. both the amount awarded today and the £400k already paid by South Yorkshire Police). The actions of a reporter led the police to believe that they had no choice but to co-operate with the BBC or there was a risk that their investigation would be compromised by premature publicity.

Why isn't he in prison with Tommy Robinson

Because he didn't commit a crime. What happened was a breach of civil law, not criminal law.

apparently the BBC reporter and staff tried to mislead the court, and were roundly slapped down by the judge

It is clear from the judgement that the evidence given some of the BBC's witnesses and the case they tried to make was not consistent with emails and notes at the time of the events.

Also bear in mind the figure mentioned today is an interim. I've seen £4,000,000 mentioned, as Cliff can clearly show he's lost out on a few years work as a result.

Did the BBC take legal advice before covering the raid ? If they didn't, is there a case to be made that they should have ? And if they did, why did they ignore it ?

Cliff has claimed it cost him around £4m so presumably the bbc the same on top of the fine
Now they are considering an appeal with more of our money

*RedDogsBeg I agree with most of what you say. I was merely showing the difference between Tommy Robinson and the BBC since I was asked that. I'm not defending or condoning the behaviour of anyone.

Not only will the taxpayer bear the cost of the fine but also the lawyers costs etc I bet it is a fair few quid

There are still some matters to be decided so we don't know the full cost to the BBC yet but I would guess somewhere between £1M and £2M. That is a drop in the ocean for the BBC - less than 0.05% of their total income. So, for the average licence fee payer, around 7.5p of our £150.50 licence fee will go into this case.

I've seen £4,000,000 mentioned, as Cliff can clearly show he's lost out on a few years work as a result

It will not run to that much or anything like. A lot of any lost income will not be reclaimable from the BBC or the police.

Cliff has claimed it cost him around £4m so presumably the bbc the same on top of the fine

There is no fine. This is a civil case. The BBC has to pay damages. So far the judge has assessed general and aggravated damages. He has also set out the principles for assessing special damages, which is where any lost income comes into things. It is clear from the principles set out that it will not be possible for Sir Cliff to reclaim all of the income he claims to have lost.

Just to be completely clear, the BBC has to pay damages to Sir Cliff.

Just waded through the entire Judgement, it paints the BBC in a terrible light.

I hope substantial special damages are awarded to Cliff Richard.

I agree with you prh47bridge about the BBC losing sight of the difference between public interest and interesting to the public and I hope their appeal does not get very far.

Not read the whole judgement. My understanding is that the judge said that even if the BBC had just mentioned he was being investigated, it would have been an invasion of privacy.
Therefore, no media will ever be able to name anyone being investigated, which could cause issue with future crimes, specifically sex related, when the name of a suspect can help bring forward other victims.
This bit may be worth appealing

Cliff Richard has said he would rather see 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person suffer.

I absolutely don't agree with the BBC publicising the police raid but that statement makes me feel uneasy!

My understanding is that the judge said that even if the BBC had just mentioned he was being investigated, it would have been an invasion of privacy

That is correct.

Therefore, no media will ever be able to name anyone being investigated

But that is not correct. The judge was clear that there are some circumstances where a suspect will lose the right to privacy. Also, even when a suspect is entitled to privacy, that has to be balanced against the media's rights to free expression. In some circumstances the media's rights will win. In this case the BBC failed to show that publicising the fact that Cliff Richard was under investigation was in the public interest. That is why they lost. In other cases there may be a genuine public interest in naming a suspect, in which case the media would be able to do so.

that statement makes me feel uneasy

Sir Cliff was quoting "Blackstone's formulation". It has been fundamental to the British legal system since the 19th Century and underpins the presumption of innocence. It is one of the bedrocks on which our criminal justice system is built.

Totally agree OP. Shame on the police too.

If the BBC can pay their top presenter £1.75million every year, they can certainly afford to pay for any lost income by Sir Cliff.

The BBC spent decades using our money to be a massive front for paedophiles, they are a vestige of 1950s state authoritarianism that doesn't have to respond to customer complaints in any meaningful sense, and when a politician threatens to rein them in they seem to change their minds shortly after their initial visit by BBC execs.

They must have known that Sir Cliff was not part of the celebrity sex predator scene because they seem to have been bloody well orchestrating it and running interference for it themselves, so I guess there is something else about Sir Cliff that made them want to slur him.

Looking at their current output, you might think you could speculate on what that thing is.

I read the judgement. Any faith I may have had in BBC News has taken something of a battering.

I don't see what the big deal is, Cliff Richards house being raided seems to be something that would constitute news by the standard of the day.

I've never been clear on the law on these things to be honest.

Me too hula. Myself and my son were very suprised to hear him say that. What about the innocent victims of the 10 people that get away with their crimes? Why is it ok for them to suffer? I must admit that comment diluted my sympathy

@hula008 Cliff Richard has said he would rather see 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person suffer.

I don't know why you feel uneasy. That's precisely the argument used for the repeal of and refusal to reinstate the death penalty. It is better than 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person suffer.

I agree with Sir Cliff because in this sort of case it never goes away. Anything in this line is always considered by sections of the public as "no smoke without fire" and that's been clear enough on MN in the past. The BBC and SYP behaved appallingly and I am very glad at this result.

I've always been a defender of the BBC but in recent years I can no longer do so. There have been far too many problems now.

I don't know why you feel uneasy. That's precisely the argument used for the repeal of and refusal to reinstate the death penalty. It is better than 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person suffer

Saved me saying it. You cannot even begin to have a fair justice system without this as a starting point.

However I still don't give a shit about the BBC reporting as I still don't understand the difference between this and many many other cases. Or is this a landmark? In which case the BBC should definitely appeal if for no other reason than any case that sets a precedent should be tested as much as possible.

I'm glad he won, the BBC were going to submit this story for a scoop award, he wasn't even at home when the raid happened was he? The police have at least apologised but they should never have tipped off the media in the first place.

I still don't understand the difference between this and many many other cases

To some degree the difference is that Sir Cliff had the money to take on the BBC and the determination to do so. It was also made easier for him in that, in this case, the BBC was very clearly the news organisation responsible for breaking the story. And, as I have said above, the BBC was unable to demonstrate that their reporting was in the public interest. If, for example, the police had requested reporting in an attempt to flush out other victims the BBC may have been in the clear as that would have established a possible public interest in reporting.

I must admit that comment diluted my sympathy

It shouldn't have. As I stated above, he was simply restating one of the principles on which our criminal justice system is built. That is why we have the presumption of innocence. That is why the burden of proof in criminal cases falls on the prosecution. To paraphrase the explanation by John Adams (second president of the USA which also follows this dictum), it is not possible for all criminals to be punished but, when innocent men are condemned, people will say that it doesn't matter how they behave because being innocent is no security against punishment.

I don't care for the man although I don't know him, however, the zeal with which the BBC reported the "story" crossed a line for me. It seemed hugely prejudicial with the helicopter shots, it was dreadfully Americanised in its style too.

As for the reporter, his voice gets on my tits. Like, swinging from my nipples yodelling getting on my tits.

being innocent is no security against punishment.

Seems, in the US, it isn't.

www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/opinion/when-innocence-is-no-defense.html