NO one who saw Sir Cliff Richard emerge from the High Court in London could be in any doubt about the strain he has been under. In 2014 the singer had to watch his home being raided as part of an investigation into historical child sex allegations; he then sued the BBC for a breach of privacy when they refused to apologise or back down and appeared close to tears yesterday after hearing he had won his case. It was a legal victory, but one that had clearly come at a considerable personal cost to the winner.

However – difficult as the court case has been for Sir Cliff, who was never arrested or charged – the issues that Judge Justice Mann’s ruling raises are much bigger than Sir Cliff or any individual. Until now, suspects in police investigations into sexual offences can be, and have been, named; indeed, the naming of suspects in this way has come to be seen as essential in some cases to help the police gather evidence and find additional complainants.

The High Court ruling changes all of that. It says Sir Cliff had a right to privacy in respect of the police investigation and that the BBC infringed those rights, rejecting the corporation’s defence that it could name the singer under its right to freedom of expression. “Knowing that Sir Cliff was under investigation might be of interest to the gossip-mongers,” said the judge, “but it does not contribute materially to the public interest in the existence of police investigations in this area.”

However, this is not just about so-called gossip-mongers, it is about the right of the public to know about the activities of the police, and other public bodies, and the right of the press to investigate and report on them. Even the BBC appears to acknowledge it should have handled some aspects of its reporting differently – the helicopter hovering over Sir Cliff’s home was clearly a mistake for instance – but the High Court ruling represents something much more profound.

As it stands, what it means is that there could be no identification of a suspect in a police investigation – it might even lead to the bizarre situation in the case of non-sexual offences where the victim could be named but not the accused. The ruling is also likely to be followed in Scotland as our courts recognise the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was the basis of Sir Cliff’s case.

The BBC says it will now consider an appeal and, for the sake of press freedom, it should. There will always be a delicate balance to be struck between Article 8 and Article 10 which protects the right to freedom of expression, but rather a balancing act than a blanket ban on the naming of suspects. Sir Cliff has won a legal victory after several years of stress and emotional pressure. But, to protect a free media and the public’s right to know, his victory cannot – and must not – be allowed to stand.