Unappealing

The BBC's legal strategy in the Sir Cliff Richard case was pretty bold - yesterday. Gavin Millar, QC, went to ask Mr Justice Mann to allow an appeal against his judgement on a wide range of counts. He said it would have a "chilling" effect on journalists; "editors would have to decide whether to report a name in the context of an investigation and may be deterred from that by the spectre of high damages". This, he argued, would deter "cash-strapped regional newspapers" (No mention of a cash-strapped Auntie).

He said the judge had erred in his judgement of Sir Cliff's rights to privacy, had "not given weight" to the media's right to freedom of expression, and had failed to take account of the "presumption of innocence" as carried in the BBC's reporting.

After a break for lunch, Mr Justice Mann came back and gave Mr Millar another kicking, refusing an appeal because it had no real prospect of success: it was “wrong” and an “erroneous reading” of his ruling to suggest he had imposed “some blanket restriction” on reporting police investigations. The judge referred back to his ruling, including some discussion of concessions by Mr Millar in the trial proper that Sir Cliff had a reasonable expection of privacy from South Yorkshire Police in relation to their investigation.  Other good words used by the judge about Mr Millar's analysis of where he went wrong: "meaningless" and "irrelevant". And Mr Justice Mann revealed he'd been listing to Today on Radio 4 that morning, saying that the BBC's Legal Correspondent, Clive Coleman, had been mistaken when he suggested a judge would have to admit he had got it wrong in order to grant permission to appeal against his own judgment.

After yesterday's session a BBC spokesperson said "This is a complex case and while we hadn't decided on whether to pursue an appeal, we sought permission today in order to keep all options open. We reiterate that we are very sorry to Sir Cliff for the distress caused and have no desire to prolong this case unnecessarily, but the ruling has raised significant questions for press freedom and we are considering the best way to address these."