By Dr Evan Harris, Executive director Hacked Off

Contrary to what the BBC and other media outlets have said, Sir Cliff Richard’s privacy case ruling is not a threat to media freedom. Rather it is a welcome clarification of how the media’s commercial interest in publishing “crime stories” and salacious gossip and the public’s interest in knowing what is going on should be balanced against the right of innocent people to protect their privacy and their reputation.

Firstly, the judge stated that, “as a matter of general principle, a suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to a police investigation”. That doesn’t mean that in every incidence, the identity of someone arrested by the police should be protected.

Currently that protection ends when someone is charged. Also if the police feel they need to release a name to aid their investigation (for example to seek witnesses or other victims) they can do so, but that did not apply here.

Rather, in this case an individual who wasn’t even under arrest, let alone charged, was identified and had his own home publicly raided by the police.

The British justice system relies upon presumption of innocence, but the process of publicly identifying someone as being a suspect erodes that presumption in the eyes of the public, not least because the initial coverage is greater than that of a later “no further action” decision. The mud sticks.

Although Hacked Off works mainly with those ordinary members of the public who can’t afford lawyers, the judge found that the fact Sir Cliff has a public profile does not mean he does not have a right to privacy. In fact, he pointed out such people are more likely to be the victims of false allegations.

This ruling was about the balance in any given case between any genuine public interest, and the privacy rights of the subject.