Cliff Richard High Court Case

...which informs the news presentation you see on screen. It might not be directly news presentation, but it is an important contributing factor.

Precisely. All live presenters and reporters need to be across journalism law to do their jobs effectively. That's a key element of 'presentation'.

I was just clarifying that he was not arrested, so your comment wasn't initially relevant to Cliff Richard's case.

There wasn't a suggestion of keeping the name of a person arrested secret. It was keeping the name of a person who had NOT been arrested confidential that seems to be the issue here (not the method in which it was reported, but the reporting of it at all)



I'm not sure you can jump to that conclusion - though the general public almost certainly will have done by the tone of the reporting of the case (not just by the BBC)

However the Police did have enough cause to continue investigations, after an an initial report, to convince a court to issue a search warrant. I'm not sure that equates to 'probable cause' (I don't think that concept exists in the same way here), just that they had a serious report from a potential victim, who may have appeared credible, that they had to investigate. This was in the context of a number of widespread 'Historical Celebrity Sex Abuse' scandals that all surfaced around the same time.

In this context (well loved celebrity hauled over the coals in public) I can see public support. However the overriding principle does worry me.

Okay. Obviously it was whole different type of legal system but I was under the impression some things were the same/similar. Maybe watching Law & Order: UK might help - reportedly they were going to use the same scripts (but different locations) as the first US season all the way back in (or series in the UK) 1990 but the legal and police system is different.

Some of the reading I did about the Cliff Richards case was about keeping everything confidential until the verdict of guilty. Which in my mind would allow a lot of coverups and of course people want to know about what happened after a crime - like a murder.

Here in the US arrest records are generally public. You just have to know where to get them - some states make it easy others hard. Take Florida mugshots and addresses are readily available on various websites. Some TV stations in Florida mainly post all the mugshots and information of all crimes in their viewing area. I think it’s automatically aggregated off a wire service. But here in Maryland I can’t find crap online and I’d either have to wait for the police blotter (if they still have them) in the paper, go to the police station or court house. But once I find a name you can find the crimes, court dates, bail amounts, their address all online but I’ve never seen a picture (unless it’s from the news).

Noggin you’re always a wealth of information. I hope some of my posts about the US are equally as helpful.

With respect, this forum was set up to discuss idents and the likes. Personally I think we're now stretching it a bit far by discussing the minutiae of a journalistic legal case. But, each to their own.

The BBC is to seek permission to appeal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44961556

(And IMO this discussion is far more relevant to news presentation than who is presenting BBC World at 4pm on a Sunday afternoon, but this thread has been dominated too much by one person with little of substance to contribute.)

Big risk for the BBC- press will turn on if their lose it and there is no public support.
From what I have read their are Unlikely to win - first they will likely have to go to the court of appeal to get permission which the BBC still has not confirmed it will (its only confirmed it will ask the original judge, and original judges very rarely grant appeals against their own ruling).

BBC will pay £850 thousand in costs to Sir Cliff and £150 Thousand to South Yorkshire Police. + BBC legal costs the whole affair will cost somewhere near £2million

Permission, as the BBC expected, has been denied. BBC yet to announce (They have 21 days to do so) if they will appeal to the Court of Appeal - and enter a process that will take at least 18 months.
The Judge's statement's seem to say the ruling does not apply as a blanket ban which might weaken the main area of the BBC's argument (and possibly reduce the support the rest of the press gives to any appeal)

Why are they paying SYP’s fees?

Because they've lost the case and therefore have to cover the costs for all parties concerned.