[dropcap]S[/dropcap]ome three years ago, maybe a bit longer, then Director of Public Prosecutions Victoria Charles-Clarke advised local journalists to be careful how they went about reporting court and police matters. She reminded media representatives that it was one thing to suspect someone of unlawful behavior and altogether something else to prove the charge. The Director of Public Prosecutions emphasized that suspects were, under our laws, innocent until proven guilty. She warned, too, against featuring in media reports the names and images of people, in particular those charged with serious crime, such as murder and rape. Additionally, that being in possession of the particulars did not give journalists the right to publicize them until the matter in question had been properly adjudicated.
The then president of the local media association was less than grateful for the DPP’s free legal advice. Indeed, it seemed he was highly offended. He publicly stated, during interviews, televised and otherwise, that on the remembered occasion the Director of Public Prosecutions had set out to gag the press, an outrageous declaration that caught the attention of the producer of Untold Stories. In an episode centered on the local media, he asked a former judge whether the DPP had the authority to tell journalists what to publish and was correctly informed that only the courts had the power to issue such directives. I suspect the producer might’ve elicited a totally different reaction had he worded more precisely his question to the ex-judge. In all events, it has long been the policy of this particular newspaper not to identify police suspects. Even when they have been declared guilty as charged, we exercise great caution in our reporting of court details—as much for our own sake as for that of the convicted party.
Reporters who carelessly feature images of individuals under arrest leave themselves vulnerable to several consequences. Even when the suspect has been declared guilty in one court, there is still a chance another court might reverse the decision, leaving him free to pursue charges against reckless scoop-hungry reporters and their employers. The safest policy, we long ago decided, is not to identify such individuals until they have made their final court appearances.
Can a reporter safely name a man taken into custody by the police? Yes, depending on what’s written in relation to the arrest. We long ago made it STAR policy to inform our readers only that a man has been taken into custody in connection with a certain incident. For several years now, even when we’ve taken pictures of an arrest in progress, or of an individual under police escort on his way to court, we are careful how we use the images. Under no circumstances would we publish photographs of rape victims, regardless of age or gender. As for the images of underage children, whether crime suspects or victims, it has always been our policy at the STAR never to publish them—if indeed we took them in the first place.
Experienced journalists and informed, not to say careful, publishers know how to write and disseminate stories (even those that might be considered sensational) without the risk of being accused of defamation or contempt of court or invasion of privacy. To have been the first to publish may have its cheap thrills but such excitements can be costly. Good writing full of pertinent details, will never be trumped by haphazard hasty reporting bereft of verifiable facts, with little regard for privacy laws. Which brings us the British rock icon Cliff Richard, whose home was raided by the Southeast Yorkshire police while the singer was in Portugal, with a tipped off BBC helicopter crew recording the raid.
I first met Cliff Richard at a youth club in Hackney, East London. The club was operated by an organization of priests and Cliff was one of the star judges of a rock ‘n’ roll competition in which I had participated—and taken first place. Among my prizes, which included cash, was the opportunity to audition for an independent record producer named Joe Meek that led to my first recording contract with Pye Records. Already they had signed a fellow Saint Lucian named Emile Forde.
Four years ago, when the legendary showbiz personality Jimmy Saville was making posthumous headlines in the UK and elsewhere for allegedly molesting scores of underage girls, I picked up a newspaper that prominently featured “exclusive coverage” of the police raid on one of Cliff’s residences, allegedly precipitated by a grown man’s allegation that when he was still a child the singer had molested him.
To say I was absolutely flummoxed by what I’d read is to understate my immediate reaction. It had been shattering enough to read the allegations against Jimmy Saville. He had been widely celebrated in his time as a top-tier TV personality, a radio deejay, a sometime comedian and as a most generous philanthropist. But my respect for Jimmy stemmed from the assistance he afforded me after I had cut my first record “Hot Chickaroo,” including the important industry people to whom he introduced me. To this day I have difficulty believing he actually did what so many accused him of having done to them, but only after he was long dead and buried and in no position to defend himself.
Perhaps I’m in denial. That’s what those who remain convinced Michael Jackson was a pedophile say about his loyal fans, many of whom insist their idol had always been asexual, never mind his daughter Paris and her two siblings Prince and Blanket; never mind Michael’s short-lived marriage to Elvis’ only offspring Lisa Marie.
Cliff Richard’s personal life, his sexual preferences, in particular, had always been a much discussed subject; almost from the moment he released his pulsating debut recording “Move It.” In short, Cliff Richard’s sex life had always been for journalists the showbiz holy grail. By all the evidence, Cliff lived for his music: he was never the subject of scandals; was never associated with drugs, which is more than can be said about Elvis, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones—until 2014, when the police invited the BBC to cover their raid on his mansion.
After a long battle to clear his name that cost him an estimated £4 million, a UK high court awarded the singer £210,000 in damages for the BBC’s invasion of his privacy. The police, who were given the opportunity to settle out of court but refused, were also ordered to pay the singer damages in the sum of £400,000. Cliff is likely to receive a further award, depending on the success of his claim that he has been unable to work since the scandal broke in 2014.
By the way, the singer was never arrested or charged. His accuser disappeared into thin air, as did four other men who also claimed Cliff had abused them as children. Some are already saying the Cliff Richard case will change how celebrities in trouble are treated by the press, that had Harvey Weinstein been a UK citizen and not American he might not now be facing numerous charges of sexual harassment and rape.
A former newspaper editor disagrees. The privacy law is as it has always been, she insists. Referencing the Cliff Richard judgment, she wrote online: “I can’t see how a police raid on an unoccupied luxury flat owned by a wealthy pensioner who just happens to sell millions of records, and refuses to discuss his sex life with journalists, is worth sticking at the top of a news bulletin. How was my life made more safe or in any way enriched by knowing that the man in question was Cliff Richard? Since the Jimmy Saville scandal, which has resulted in hundreds of sexual abuse cases coming to light, journalists argue that naming suspects (even when evidence has not been tested and may turn out to be tittle-tattle or lies) is worth it because the glare of publicity encourages other victims to come forward.”
“The contrary argument,” the former editor offered, “is that innocent people get dragged into the spotlight, their lives are turned upside down in the name of free speech and freedom of the press, while false accusers are protected by their anonymity.”
Seems to me the cited advice served the local media was pretty sound after all!
