Sir
Cliff Richard has maintained a low profile in Portugal
this week while preparing for a return to Britain to face police questioning
about his alleged sexual assault on a young boy.
Many thought it almost inevitable that Sir
Cliff would one day be investigated for alleged
child abuse and yet when the news broke it came as a shock.
The allegation
of sexual impropriety was quickly eclipsed by a scandal in which investigating
police and the BBC have been accused of collusion and orchestrating a public
spectacle that has been branded a ‘witch-hunt.’
Sir Cliff, who
was relaxing at his holiday home in the Algarve , suddenly found himself
named and shamed globally because of a single complaint from an unknown
individual about an as yet unverified assault nearly 30 years ago.
The way in which
the police and media have handled the matter remains highly questionable.
Serious ethical questions have been raised.
For starters, should
someone be publicly identified by the police and have their name splashed on TV
and in newspapers before they have even been interviewed
let alone charged?
Gossip about the
singing star’s sexuality had been rife for decades, of course. And since the
outpouring of revelations about Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris and other
entertainers, the Internet has been abuzz with suggestions that Sir Cliff would
sooner or later be exposed as a paedophile.
The shock news
hit the headlines last Thursday (14th August) with a live-on-TV police raid on
Sir Cliff’s Berkshire home. When eight
plain-clothed police officers arrived in five unmarked cars to search Sir Cliff’s
penthouse property within a gated community, a BBC helicopter was already hovering
overhead and another camera crew was at the front gate.
The BBC led with
a report that the search, which lasted five hours, had been instigated by an alleged
historical sex offence involving a boy under the age of 16.
Just a few hours
before the raid, Sir Cliff had left his Algarve vineyard
estate and
travelled to the Alentejo with his youngest sister,
Joan Pilgrim. They returned the next day.
By then Sir Cliff
had described the sexual assault allegation as “completely false” and expressed
anger that the police had apparently alerted the press before contacting him.
The following
day, the galloping story of the search and assault claim appeared on the front
page of most of Britain ’s
national papers and in many others around the world. Most people on the planet
not otherwise preoccupied by a nearby war were soon aware that the iconic
singer was in big trouble.
Trolls galore rushed
to make asinine comments on social media. Droves of devoted fans countered with
expressions of support on Facebook and Twitter, but it was already too late. As
the saying goes, mud sticks.
What exactly had
Sir Cliff done to deserve all this? It was far from clear, but obviously the media had enthusiastically latched on to
the fact that Sir Cliff is famous and in danger of becoming infamous.
Apparently the
allegation against him came from a man in his 40s who had watched a TV
documentary about Jimmy Saville and then contacted the producer of the
programme, the investigative journalist Mark Williams-Thomas. The allegation
and other information was duly passed on by Williams-Thomas to Metropolitan
Police Service detectives conducting the Operation Yewtree sexual abuse inquiry.
Last weekend the
South Yorkshire Police revealed they had been contacted “weeks ago” by a BBC
reporter who had found out about their supposedly highly confidential investigation
into Sir Cliff’s alleged assault, said to have taken place in 1985 at an event
in Sheffield that featured the US
preacher Billy Graham.
The South Yorkshire Police said they had been
“reluctant” to co-operate with the BBC, but believed if they did not the BBC
would run the story anyway, potentially jeopardising the police investigation.
So the police
struck a deal whereby the BBC was given exclusive information in advance of the
Berkshire raid in return for delaying
publication of their story.
Amid a flurry of
reported denials, claims and counter claims from both the police and the BBC, Keith
Vaz, chairman of the House of Commons home affairs committee, said: “The police
have a duty to act with fairness and integrity. Incalculable damage can be done
to the reputation of individuals in circumstances such as this.”
Former attorney general
Dominic Grieve called the police’s handling of the case “odd.” A prominent
human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson, questioned both the judgement of the
BBC and legality of the search warrant used by the police.
Former home
secretary David Davis said the “extraordinary decision” of the police to allow
filming outside Sir Cliff's home demonstrated that there is “something sick at
the heart of Britain ’s
police and justice system.”
The police
condemned the live coverage in an official letter of complaint to the BBC’s
director-general, pointing out that the corporation appeared to have contravened
its own editorial guidelines.
Despite all the
huffing and puffing, the police expressed gratitude for the press publicity on
the search because it resulted in a number of people coming forward with
further information. They would not say whether the callers included more
alleged victims or potential witnesses, but the plot was thickening.
So far, the
police and the media had blackened a person’s name even though that person had
not been confronted with any evidence of wrongdoing or given an opportunity to
properly respond.
While
being buoyed by a tight coterie of friends and advisers, Sir Cliff’s has had a
visit from a highly-rated British solicitor, Ian Burton, whose legal firm has
represented the likes of former Harrod’s owner Mohamed Al-Fayed, football
manager Harry Redknapp, PR agent Max Clifford and TV celebrity Nigel Lawson. Ian
Burton enjoys the reputation of being a particularly tough and canny lawyer
adept at nipping criminal investigations in the bud.