Conclusions and Recommendations
1. If
South Yorkshire Police believed that the premature broadcasting
of a story about the investigation could have prejudiced their
enquiries, then they should have contacted more senior people
at the BBC to explain the situation, rather than trying to cut
a deal with an individual reporter. Given that the BBC had information
about the investigation and the timing and location of the execution
of the search warrant, which was freely provided to them by South
Yorkshire Police, we see nothing wrong in their decision to run
the story. It is unfortunate, however, that they allowed another
of their correspondents to give a misleading impression of the
circumstances under which the Corporation came by this information,
downplaying the BBC's role and suggesting that South Yorkshire
Police were actively seeking publicity for the investigation.
(Paragraph 7)
2. Whereas South Yorkshire Police
have been very forthcoming in supplying us with all the material
we have sought from them, the BBC have chosen to hide their reporter
behind his superiors, issuing equivocal denials on his behalf.
It seems likely to us, on balance, that Mr Johnson did indeed
indicate to South Yorkshire Police that he had detailed knowledge
of the investigation, beyond the name of the suspect, and that,
whether by act or omission, he gave them the clear impression
that his source was Operation Yewtree. (Paragraph 11)
3. It is clear that South Yorkshire
Police's exchanges with the BBC went far beyond confirming the
date of the search of Sir Cliff's home. The Force played an active
part in providing the BBC with detailed information which would
allow it to secure exclusive coverage of the search. (Paragraph
12)
4. This episode clearly points
to a leak from within Operation Yewtree and it is therefore surprising
that Chief Constable Crompton did not seek to contact the Metropolitan
Police soon after the approach from Mr Johnson to alert them to
the possible leak and invite them to investigate. (Paragraph 13)
5. It would have been open to
South Yorkshire Police to decide to publicise the name of the
subject of this investigation had they chosen to do so for operational
reasons. However, the naming of suspects (or the confirming of
a name when it is put to a force) when there is no operational
need to do so is wrong. (Paragraph 17)
6. The conversations between
Dan Johnson and South Yorkshire Police led eventually to high-profile
television coverage of allegations against a well-known public
figure. The potential damage to the individuals under investigation
means that the police should not give the media advance notice
of arrests, the execution of search warrants, and other aspects
of investigations of high-profile individuals, except, as we have
already noted, where it is justified on operational grounds. South
Yorkshire Police have told us that they did not want to publicise
their investigation, but offered the BBC information about the
search warrant as part of a compromise in which the BBC did not
broadcast prematurely the information its reporter had. Senior
BBC executives told us that the Chief Constable had only to pick
up the phone and they would not have broadcast the story, a sensible
editorial policy which should reduce the scope for conflict between
legitimate journalistic activity and law enforcement, and which
we are happy to endorse and publicise here. We hope that this
episode will provide a useful case-study for police forces when
considering their dealings with the media. (Paragraph 18)
7. We are disappointed by South
Yorkshire Police's inept handling of this situation. Whereas it
is clear that the Force felt from the outset that it had to cooperate
with the BBC in order to avoid jeopardising the investigation,
its cooperation went far beyond notifying the BBC of the date,
the Force failed to go to senior managers at the BBC to explain
the risks inherent in premature broadcasting of the story, and
it failed to alert the Metropolitan Police to the possibility
of a leak from within Operation Yewtree. (Paragraph 19)
8. It is clear that Sir Cliff
Richard has personally suffered enormous, irreparable damage to
his reputation, though he has been neither arrested nor charged
with any offence. We have seen recently in the press that Sir
Cliff has considered selling his home, which he only bought in
2008, because of the way the operation was carried out, and we
can understand his feelings. No citizen should have to watch on
live television their home being raided in this way. (Paragraph
20)
| 
