You might remember Starts at 60 reporting last year that Sir Cliff Richard was suing police and the BBC for ‘damaging his reputation’?
Well, 11 months later he’s had a major win!
Sir Cliff has been award a million pound ($1.72 million) settlement from the South Yorkshire Police over the highly-publicised August 2014 raid on his home over abuse allegations against him.
After the investigation into the allegations was dropped, Sir Cliff decided to sue the BBC and South Yorkshire Police, who he claims “unlawfully colluded” to invade his privacy by broadcasting the raid.
Read more: Sir Cliff Richard set to sue for having his life ‘turned upside down’
As the Mirror reports, the 76-year-old’s barrister told the High Court the South Yorkshire Police “recognised their conduct was unlawful” and “agreed to pay the claimant a substantial sum by way of general and aggravated damages”.
In a video on his Facebook page, Sir Cliff said he was “delighted” by the outcome and that was “so happy” they made a full apology.
But it looks like the BBC won’t be backing down without a fight.
While the police may have agreed to pay Sir Cliff a settlement, the BBC are refusing to follow suit.
They’ve issued a statement claiming the police’s decision to settle wouldn’t change the “fundamental principle that journalistic organisations should be able to report on the police and police investigations”.
However, according to a statement by Sir Cliff’s legal team, the High Court has ruled in favour of their application to compel the BBC to answer a question relating to whether or not they were tipped off by police about the raid.
Sir Cliff has previously said the raid and subsequent media coverage ‘turned his life upside down’.
“Having suffered the experience that I have, I firmly believe that privacy should be respected and that police guidelines are there to be followed,” he wrote on Facebook last year.
“That means that save in exceptional circumstances people should never be named unless and until they are charged. As everybody has accepted there were no such “exceptional circumstances” in my case.”