Sir Cliff Richard – The Damage Is Done
So here we are at the end of the Sir Cliff Richard Sex Allegation circus only to hear that the case has been dropped by the CPS.
This is after a 2-year police investigation where the media has served every sordid titbit to an ever-hungry public, seemingly with the blessing of the police.
A 2-year investigation that has reportedly cost around £800,000.
So what do we have at the end of the investigation? We have a man who’s reputation has been totally traduced and a career spanning decades tarnished beyond recognition.
The problem with sex allegations is the way society views them. They are seen as most abhorrent of all crimes. The accused of those offences are the witches of the 21st Century, subjected to the same persecution and public opinion based trials from centuries before.
Every time a person is accused of a sexual offence, another Salem is created until they actually find the sanctity of a courtroom.
The mere allegation of a sexual offence can and often does cause irreparable harm to a person’s home, family and professional life.
The local newspapers are all too quick to publish the names of those who face a sexual allegation. So keen to “name and shame” that no thought is given to the ramifications of the news story.
Such is the spectre of sexual allegations to the public at large that in just hearing that a person has been charged with an offence will, in all but a few, invoke the “no smoke without fire” response.
For these very reasons, I have long been an advocate of anonymity for defendants in sex offence cases.
Anonymity is a right conveyed on the alleged victim in the case, so as to afford them protection throughout the trial process and from the media reporting their identity which may cause them serious personal issues.
It is important to state that I am not waving a liberal banner for sex offenders. Nor am I suggesting that there should be an altering in the sentencing for sexual offences. I fully believe that a defendant who is found guilty of sexual offences needs to face the full sentencing power that the law allows.
However, what can’t be undone is the damage done to those defendants who are either found innocent of the sexual offence allegations made or that their cases have been dropped by the prosecuting authorities.
For these defendants, they are seemingly always left in a state of limbo. Their reputations hung out to dry. Always with societies doubts hanging over their heads. Waiting for the next whisper or comment to be made, either them or their family.
I should state at this point that you will find below a few links to some of my TV and radio appearances on the subject.
After the news of Sir Cliff’s case for historical sexual abuse being dropped, he stated that he was “obviously thrilled that the vile allegations” have now ended.
He further stated that he had been “hung out like live bait” and called for those who are facing such allegations to never been named publicly until charged.”
I note that Sir Cliff says “charged” and in his case, Sir Cliff was never charged. Which makes his case even more of a flagship example for what is deemed as in the public interest when reporting on impending sex cases.
There is a reason why this country’s criminal justice system is the seen as the best in the world. It is the implied fairness, the weighing and consideration of lawfully obtained evidence to make sure that convictions are safe and just.
It is vital that the legal system we all subscribe to serves us as a society to protect the innocent and punish the wrongdoers.
And it must be there to protect the innocent. The innocent being those people who are facing an allegation and are later cleared of those charges or offences.
But how indicative of the way society looks on sexual offence allegations such that the fanfare played for exoneration seems to be much softer than that played when they first appear in the press.
After this 2 year investigation, what did the police have to say about it all?
South Yorkshire Police apologised “wholeheartedly for the additional anxiety caused” by the force’s “initial handling of the media interest” in the investigation.
The police’s “initial handling of the media interest” was, in fact, the police cutting a deal with the BBC in order to allow the filming of the raid on Sir Cliff’s home.
Sir Cliff made a full statement following the news of his case being dropped, in which he stated: “After almost two years under police investigation I learnt today that they have finally closed their enquiries.
“I have always maintained my innocence, co-operated fully with the investigation, and cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point!
“Nevertheless, I am obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close.
“Ever since the highly-publicised and BBC-filmed raid on my home I have chosen not to speak publicly.
“Even though I was under pressure to ‘speak out’, other than to state my innocence, which was easy for me to do as I have never molested anyone in my life, I chose to remain silent.
“This was despite the widely-shared sense of injustice resulting from the high-profile fumbling of my case from day one. Other than in exceptional cases, people who are facing allegations should never be named publicly until charged.
I was named before I was even interviewed and for me that was like being hung out like ‘live bait’.
“It is obvious that such strategies simply increase the risk of attracting spurious claims which not only tie up police resources and waste public funds, but they forever tarnish the reputations of innocent people.
“There have been numerous occasions in recent years where this has occurred, and I feel very strongly that no innocent person should be treated in this way.
“I know the truth and in some people’s eyes, the CPS’ announcement today doesn’t go far enough because it doesn’t expressly state that I am innocent; which of course I am. There lies the problem.
“My reputation will not be fully vindicated because the CPS’ policy is to only say something general about there being ‘insufficient’ evidence.
“How can there be evidence for something that never took place! This is also a reason why people should never be named publicly until they have been charged unless there are exceptional circumstances.
“To my fans and members of the public, to the press and media, all of whom continued to show me such encouraging and wonderful support, I would like to say “thank you” it would have been so much harder without you.”
In fairness to South Yorkshire Police who were the force making the investigation, their full statement is: “In May this year, South Yorkshire Police presented the final investigation files to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relating to four allegations of non-recent sexual abuse involving a 75-year-old man.
“After careful consideration of the evidence provided to them, the CPS has concluded that no further action should be taken against the man due to there being insufficient evidence to prosecute.
“A further five allegations considered by the investigation team did not meet the threshold for referral to CPS for a charging decision.
“South Yorkshire Police accept the decision of the CPS in this case and all those involved have been informed.
“The force apologises wholeheartedly for the additional anxiety caused by our initial handling of the media interest in this case and has implemented the learning from this and the subsequent review conducted by former Chief Constable Andy Trotter.
“Following an initial allegation received by the force in April 2014, South Yorkshire detectives have explored and gathered all information available and carried out a thorough and detailed investigation, which has covered the UK and abroad.
“The investigation, which has spanned two years, is estimated to have cost in the region of £800,000, including staffing costs.”
The force added: “Non-recent allegations are, by their very nature, complex and difficult matters to investigate and can take a considerable amount of time.
“We appreciate that waiting for a conclusion will undoubtedly have caused additional distress to all those involved and we have made every effort to ensure this has been as timely as possible.
“However, it is in the interests of justice to investigate such matters thoroughly. We have a duty to explore any allegations relating to sexual abuse and other crimes and will go wherever the evidence takes us in order to protect victims and stop offending.
“We encourage victims of non-recent abuse to have the confidence to come forward, knowing they will be listened to and that their allegations will be taken seriously and investigated. It is also important for those under investigation to know they will be treated fairly.
“Whilst recognising how difficult it is for a person to be under investigation and have their innocence publicly called into question, South Yorkshire Police acknowledges and takes seriously its responsibility to fully investigate allegations of non-recent abuse.”
So what can be learned from this high profile and tragically traduced celebrity whose reputation may forever be tarnished with these allegations?
It can be argued that there needs some rethinking over how sexual offence cases are dealt with.
Sir Cliff is correct. There should be no naming of anyone before they are charged with such an offence. It somewhat makes a mockery out of the investigation by turning it into a media circus.
It also dilutes the public’s perception of the professionalism of the police by reducing a serious investigation to sound bites and media performances that are up for constant comment and opinion from the respected press to anonymous blog comments.
However, one must also balance the public’s perception of the offence which is being charged and then reported upon. There is a massive difference between a normal assault, such as a fight outside a pub on a Friday night and a sexual assault.
An ordinary assault may take up 2 minutes of chatter if the defendant is known but a sexual offence can fuel conversation and speculation for months on end.
The judiciary needs some involvement here and given some much-needed discretion.
A valid argument is that the defendant should be automatically given the same rights of anonymity as the alleged victim in the case unless they are either convicted of the offence(s) or a judge decides that it is in the public interest that they are publicly named.
In this way, I feel that the tenets of justice are best served with a level playing field and a judge with the full facts of the case can exercise an informed judgement.
What needs to end is the blanket reporting on those defendants whose perceived good name ends the moment they are charged and not until they are convicted.
I know this article may raise some comments, both for and against and I value the opportunity to read what you have to say in the comments, either on this website or in social media.
About Nick Freeman
Nick Freeman is probably the best known solicitor practising in the country today.
He has been dubbed "Mr Loophole" by the press owing to his vast technical knowledge of motoring law matters and his ability to successfully challenge the prosecution over procedural irregularities.
Nick is widely known for his celebrity client list and high profile criminal defence cases.
Nick is the head of Freeman & Co. Solicitors and although based in Manchester, represents defendants in motoring and criminal cases all over the country.
After graduating from Chester Law School in 1979, Nick started his career as a prosecuting solicitor for Greater Manchester Police.
Nick soon became known for his technical legal abilities and robust court room style and he was soon recruited into private practice by the highly respected solicitors firm of Burton & Co. He was soon to be made a partner at the practice but in 1999 he decided to start his own firm following which Freeman & Co. was formed.
Owing to Nick's meticulous case preparation and technical legal skill he soon made Freeman & Co. one of the most respected and sought after criminal solicitors firms in the country.
Despite the celebrity client list and media attention, Nick and Freeman & Co. have built their practice on representing ordinary members of the public with the same tenacity as those more high profile cases that are reported in the press and on TV.
Outside of his professional practice Nick is a regular expert guest on TV and radio and is well regarded as an expert legal commentator. He is an ardent supporter of defendant anonymity in sex cases.
In recent times his credits have included Tonight With Trevor MacDonald, Close Up North West, Channel 4 News, BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 5 Live to name but a few. He also appears regularly on Sky News, BBC News 24 and Legal Eagles on ITV's This Morning. Nick is a regular legal commentator for the Sunday Times.
A father of 2 children Nick is a keen golfer with a 2.9 handicap and enjoys vigorous exercise with his Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
Contacting Nick Freeman
For professional matters and representation Nick can be contacted through Freeman & Co. on 0161 236 7007 or you can send him a confidential email by clicking here.
If you would like to contact Nick for a media appearance or legal comment please call David Simister on 0845 389 26 26.