Police deal with BBC over Cliff Richard raid 'caused unnecessary distress'
|
Version 0 of 1. A controversial deal between the BBC and South Yorkshire police to allow the filming of a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home has been criticised by an independent police review as an invasion of the singer’s privacy. The televised raid “may well have caused unnecessary distress” to Richard and “certainly interfered with his privacy”, according to former chief constable Andy Trotter, who conducted a review (pdf) for the South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner. He said the South Yorkshire chief constable, David Crompton, could have stepped in to prevent the media agreement. Under the deal, the BBC agreed to delay, by a month, publishing details of an investigation into an allegation that Richard sexually abused a 16-year-old boy in the 1980s. In return, South Yorkshire police tipped off the broadcaster about the timing of the raid on Richard’s Berkshire home, allowing it to broadcast live helicopter footage of the operation. Richard has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. He had not been interviewed by the police before the raid, which he watched unfold on TV while he was on holiday in Portugal. South Yorkshire police said they entered the deal because they feared that crucial evidence would be lost if the BBC reported that the 74-year-old singer was under investigation before the raid took place, as it had threatened. They believed that the BBC’s reporter, Dan Johnson, had been leaked information about Richard from Operation Yewtree, the Metropolitan police investigation into child sex abuse by the former BBC DJ Jimmy Savile and others. But in his review published on Tuesday, Trotter, a former chief constable of the British Transport police and former chair of the national police communications advisory group, concluded that the BBC was unlikely to have run the story based on a single source, without police cooperation. Johnson was not interviewed by Trotter and has not disclosed his source. Trotter’s review says it is possible that South Yorkshire police were “conned” by Johnson into revealing more information about the investigation than he already had. But he noted that the force’s head of communications, Carrie Goodwin, and the senior investigating officer in the case, Matt Fenwick, were adamant that Johnson knew as much as they did about the investigation when he approached the force a month before the raid. Trotter’s review said South Yorkshire police had breached police guidance on protecting the identity of those under investigation. “Bearing in mind that at [the time of the raid] Sir Cliff Richard had not been interviewed, let alone arrested, he should not have been informed of the allegations through the media. “By cooperating, the force ‘stood the story up’ and absolved the BBC of any risk or responsibility for the story.” The review called for revised police guidance to advise officers on how they invited journalists on planned operations. South Yorkshire police have already been heavily criticised for the way they handled the case. The home affairs select committee described the raid as “utterly inept”, but said the BBC was “within its rights to run the story”. The Trotter review said the handling of the raid had dented the force’s reputation. It said it should have taken external advice, including from the Metropolitan police, before agreeing to cooperate with the BBC. Trotter concluded: “I came across nothing to suggest that the force was seeking publicity or involved in any improper relationships with the media. However, through a failure to foresee the consequences of their decisions, they put the force in a position which was difficult to defend and which could, and should, have been avoided.” A South Yorkshire police spokesman said: “While we believe our actions in relation to dealing with the media were within policy and were well intended, they were ultimately flawed and we regret the additional anxiety which was caused to Sir Cliff Richard.” A BBC spokesman said: “The home affairs committee has already endorsed the way the BBC handled this story. We have nothing further to add.” |