on media Raymond Snoddy on the fallout from the Sir Cliff Richard case
More restrictions, more abuse of power
T
here was the dangerous pleasure of having a scoop on your hands involving a universally known personality,
after horse-trading with the police. Then there was the almost gloating helicopter coverage – and the unfortunate reality for the BBC that after two years the investigation was quietly dropped without charge. The BBC was heavily criticised,
rightly, for under-reporting and almost ignoring the Jimmy Savile affair, so was this exuberant over-reporting of Sir Cliff a subconscious reaction? The BBC has won few friends as the singer accused the corporation of acting as his ‘judge, jury and executioner’ and the overall bill heads towards £5 million. Understandably perhaps, Sir Cliff was
less than magnanimous and went on in victory to make biblical demands – that senior heads should roll at the BBC. On one side is an apparently insensitive BBC and on the other are some of his millions of fans singing Congratulations outside the High Court after Sir Cliff’s victory. One national institution has reason to feel very ill used by another. Wipe away the tears and the emotion, and the issue comes down to one that is easy to state but more difficult to resolve. Should the media name potentially innocent suspects when they are merely being investigated, not even arrested, never mind charged, and has Mr Justice Mann created new law? Legal specialists were quick to point
out that criminal suspects will now be able to block the media from reporting their arrests – to protect their privacy.
“ 8For the latest updates from Raymond Snoddy on Twitter follow @raymondsnoddy ” theJournalist | 19 Yet a life can be publicly trashed
without a shred of credible evidence, as Field Marshal Bramall and Lady Britten, the widow of Lord Leon Brittan, can testify. In Sweden, newspapers go further and usually do not name those on trial until they have been found guilty. It’s a result of cultural pressure rather than any legal requirement. Should we follow the implications of the Sir Cliff case in the direction of anonymity? The answer is almost certainly not. For the greater good, it is always
important that as much is known about police activities, investigations and arrests as possible. This society has been marked by too
Society has been marked by too many cover-ups by the authorities over the years to think that introducing further reporting curbs would be a good idea
many cover-ups by the authorities over the years to think that introducing further reporting curbs would be a good idea. Right on cue, MPs voted themselves the right to anonymity in cases of allegations of sexual misconduct and expenses fraud despite promises of greater openness. As for the newly
minted Sir Cliff law, at the very least, the ruling of an individual judge should be examined for wider implications. One obvious benefit of openness
is that publicity can bring forward further witnesses on either side. In sexual cases, publicity has
often led to many further victims who have suffered in silence for ages coming forward – though tellingly not in the case of Sir Cliff. Any such ban would see the
internet awash with rumours, some more lurid than the reality. Meanwhile, the mainstream media would be prevented from reporting the facts. It’s not just a case of the media
playing the freedom of the press card – it’s about freedom of information for everyone.
And so it is that the BBC, which
must be at least a little embarrassed and bruised by the ramifications of its scoop, now has a clear duty. After Mr Justice Mann backed his misguided judgment by blocking the initial right of appeal, the BBC must now see this through and go directly to the Appeal Court – for both the media and society.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28
