You likely saw the High Court judgment on Sir Cliff Richard’s case vs the BBC. It was an intriguing one. But the BBC’s coverage of it was even more intriguing.
Do read the BBC’s summary, 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?
What Articles of the ECHR Apply Here
There are a couple of ECHR 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.’
What is ‘Private and Family Life’?
You are entitled to live free from interference from the Government or any of its bodies. Previously, the Courts have ruled broadly on this term, defining it as the right to choose your sexual orientation, lifestyle, appearance, and who sees and touches your body. It also covers your activities, identity and relationships. You are free to enjoy economic, leisure, social and cultural activities as you please.
Crucially for Sir Cliff, it prevents the media and other bodies or individuals from impeding your life. Companies and Governments must keep all your official records, including any photographs, videos, letters and diaries, secure and confidential unless you give permission or in certain situations.
Family life refers to relationships between family members, such as:
- Married and unmarried couples
- Parents and children, including fostered, adopted and illegitimate children
- Siblings
Article 8 protects same-sex couples, although their protection comes under private life rather than family life.
You have a right to live or have regular contact with your family without interference.
What Constitutes a ‘Home’?
As part of these Articles, you have the right to enjoy your home peacefully. Whether you are at home or not, public authorities cannot enter without your permission or prevent you from entering or living in your home without a reason.
What Constitutes ‘Correspondence’
Public authorities must respect your private correspondence, including letters, text messages, phone calls, emails and faxes.
Restrictions to these Rights
Public authorities can interfere with these rights in some situations, provided that their interference is lawful, proportionate and necessary to prevent crime and disorder and protect:
- Others’ rights and freedoms
- Public safety
- National security
- Morals and health
- The economy
Using These Articles in Context
Where these two rights conflict, the Court must carefully balance them. In this case, the Judge balanced the scales more heavily onto Sir Cliff’s side for the following reasons:
- The consequence of the disclosure to him
- The public interest in identifying a person who is only under investigation 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 critical. Did Mr Johnson’s behaviour constitute acting in ‘good faith’? Mr Justice Mann did not think so.
Here are some points that Mr Justice Mann brought up in his judgment that the BBC omitted from their coverage:
- At a meeting on 15th July 2014 between the Police and the BBC, Mr Johnson exaggerated his knowledge about the investigation of Sir Cliff.
- When Mr Johnson’s source contacted him, Mr Johnson was probably aware that the original source of the information was Operation Yewtree or possibly the Metropolitan Police. His contact was either in or associated with a police force. He was not 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. He also gave further details that 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 throughout their discussion; Mr Johnson reinforced it.
To prevent that, they confirmed and offered information and, crucially, alerted him to the forthcoming search. They did not volunteer anything. Their fear of publication prompted them to reveal these details.
As for ‘good faith’? You can make up your own mind, but it seems odd that a supposedly impartial broadcasting organisation glossed over numerous implicit criticisms that Mr Justice Mann made throughout his judgement.
Instruct Our Solicitors Today
If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact our solicitors today. We can schedule a free comprehensive consultation to learn about your case and explain how we can help.
