Sir Cliff Richard To Recieve Number 850,000 As His Legal Expenses

by topic_admin

A judge ruled last week that the BBC had infringed the singer’s privacy in its reporting of a South Yorkshire Police raid in his residence in 2014, also given him #210,000 in damages.

Sir Cliff was not arrested or charged as a member of the investigation. It comes as the BBC seeks leave to appeal against the High Court ruling.

The BBC has apologised to Sir Cliff for the distress due to however, needs permission to appeal since it asserts the conclusion could threaten media freedom. The # & judge 8217;s findings included Sir Cliff had a right to privacy while he had been a defendant in a police investigation &# 2 8211; trumping the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression publish his title and pay the raid.

While the BBC has apologised to Sir Cliff Richard for the distress brought on by protection of the raid in his residence, the ruling might have an impact on media freedom, its director of information said.

Barrister Gavin Millar QC, leading the BBC legal group, told a hearing Thursday  it had been “appropriate” for the corporation to cover legal fees incurred by Sir Cliff.

The singer’s attorney, barrister Justin Rushbrooke QC, did not give a general figure for how much the instance had cost his client, however Sir Cliff advised the trial  had cost him over #3m.

The BBC is going to cover #315,000 to South Yorkshire Police for legal costs

On Thursday, the BBC’s Mr Millar outlined his permission to appeal discussions in a written record and saiodbthere was a “compelling reason” for the situation to be heard and it had a “real prospect” of achievement.

The BBC’s director of information has said the ruling might have an impact on media freedom. Speaking outside court a week, Fran Unsworth admitted the instance had experienced a “very serious impact” on Sir Cliff, and there were things which may have been done differently. But she worried the truth that if no footage of the research was broadcast, “the very naming of Sir Cliff would have been unlawful”, according to the judge’s ruling. ”This generates a significant shift against media freedom,” Ms Unsworth said.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept