It’s unlikely that you missed the High Court judgment on Sir Cliff Richard’s case vs the BBC?
It was definitely an intriguing one. But even more intriguing was the BBC’s coverage of it.
Do take a read of the BBC’s summary here where you will find this line:
“The BBC said journalists acted in good faith and it is considering an appeal.”
Good faith. Covers all manner of sins, doesn’t it?
There are a couple of key Articles that come into play here:
- Article 8 of the ECHR:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”
- Article 10 of the ECHR:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.”
Where these two rights conflict (as in Sir Cliff’s case), the Court has to perform a difficult balancing exercise.
In this case, in making the decision of the Court, the Judge balanced the scales more heavily onto Sir Cliff’s side because of the following reasons:
- The consequence of the disclosure to him;
- The public interest in identifying a person who is only being investigated is not strong;
- The degree of drama and sensationalism added to the report by helicopter views of the inside of Sir Cliff’s home by the BBC;
- The BBC, through its journalist, Mr. Johnson, did not get the information about the search in a straightforward manner.
That last point is key. Did Mr Johnson’s behaviour constitute acting in ‘good faith’? Mr Justice Mann clearly didn’t think so.
Here are some points that Mr Justice Mann brought up in his judgment that the BBC unsurprisingly omitted from their coverage:
- At a meeting on the 15 July 2014 between the Police and the BBC Mr. Johnson exaggerated his knowledge about the investigation of Sir Cliff.
- When Mr Johnson was contacted by his source Mr Johnson was probably aware that the original source of the information was Operation Yewtree, or possibly the Metropolitan Police. His contact was someone in a police force, or someone associated with a police force. He was not being informed officially, and had no reason to suppose that his tip-off was sanctioned by anyone in authority.
- When Mr Johnson contacted Miss Goodwin he mentioned his source in general terms and said it was, or the information came from, Operation Yewtree, and he also gave further details which reasonably led her to suppose he had a reasonable amount of detail.
- Miss Goodwin and Supt Fenwick went into a meeting with Mr Johnson concerned that he already had a story that he could and might well publish, and retained that concern in and thoughout the meeting, reinforced by what Mr Johnson said.
In order to prevent that they confirmed and offered information, and, crucially, offered to alert him to the forthcoming search. They did not volunteer anything. Had it not been for their concern (or fear) of publication they would not have offered him anything, or at least nothing worthwhile, and would not have provided details of the search.
As for ‘good faith’? You can make your own mind up, but it seems odd that a supposedly impartial broadcasting organisation chose to gloss over the high number of implicit criticisms that Mr Justice Mann made throughout his judgment.
You can read the full judgment here:
Do you have a view on the case?