Sir Cliff Richard has returned to court, as his battle against the BBC over its coverage of a police raid on his home entered its third day.
The 77-year-old singer claims footage of the raid, carried out following an allegation of sexual assault, was a “very serious invasion” of his privacy.
He is suing the BBC in the High Court for “substantial damages” and the trial, being heard by Mr Justice Mann, began on Thursday.
BBC bosses dispute his claims.
Sir Cliff’s legal team previously told the court the BBC’s coverage of the search at his penthouse apartment in Sunningdale, Berkshire, in August 2014 had a “prolonged impact” on the star.
His barrister said the singer should get compensation at the “very top end of the scale”.
Sir Cliff broke down in tears giving evidence on Friday, as he told the judge his name had been “smeared” across the world.
He also said he was so upset by the coverage he thought he was “going to have a heart attack or a stroke” and felt like his reputation had been “forever tainted”.
The BBC says its coverage of the police raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s apartment was accurate and in good faith.
Lawyers representing BBC bosses told Mr Justice Mann that the raid was a “matter of legitimate public interest”.
Metropolitan Police officers passed the allegation to South Yorkshire Police in July 2014.
Sir Cliff denied the allegation and in June 2016 prosecutors announced that he would face no charges.
A BBC spokesman has said the BBC reported Sir Cliff’s “full denial of the allegations at every stage”.
Staff from South Yorkshire Police are due to give evidence on Monday about their contact with Dan Johnson, the BBC reporter who covered the raid.
The trial is due to last 10 days.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here