Sir Cliff Richard’s victory in his privacy battle with the BBC has “worrying consequences” for press freedom, editors have warned.

Mr Justice Mann ruled that the BBC had infringed the singer’s privacy rights in a “serious” and “somewhat sensationalist” way when reporters for the broadcaster covered a police search of his home in 2014.

The judge awarded the singer around £200,000, with the eventual sum likely to rise when “special damages” are awarded.

However specialist lawyers said the ruling had serious implications for journalists.

Sir Cliff was awarded £190,000 to cover the “general effect” on his life plus £20,000 because the BBC had aggravated the damage when it nominated its own story for an award.

Sir Cliff said he was “choked up” after the ruling at the High Court in London on Wednesday, while BBC bosses said they were considering an appeal.

Sir Cliff had sued the BBC over broadcasts of a South Yorkshire Police raid on his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, in August 2014, following a child sex assault allegation. His claim was heard at the High Court in London in April and May, at hearings in which Sir Cliff said coverage, which involved the use of a helicopter, was a “very serious invasion” of his privacy, and he said he wanted damages at the “top end” of the scale.

BBC bosses argued the coverage was accurate and in good faith. BBC director of news Fran Unsworth put forward a public interest defence - saying sexual abuse of children was a matter of serious public concern. She said reporting might encourage victims to come forward.

Mr Justice Mann heard that, in late 2013, a man had made an allegation to the Metropolitan Police, saying he had been sexually assaulted by Sir Cliff during an event featuring evangelist Billy Graham in Sheffield in 1985, when he was a child.

Sir Cliff denied the allegation. He was never arrested and in June 2016 prosecutors announced he would face no charges.

Mr Justice Mann rejected the BBC’s defence. “I do not believe that this justification was much in the minds of those at the BBC at the time,” he said. “I think that they, or most of them, were far more impressed by the size of the story and that they had the opportunity to scoop their rivals.”

The judge added: “Public figures are not fair game for any invasion of privacy.”

Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors, said: “The ruling to make it unlawful that anyone under investigation can be named is a major step and one that has worrying consequences for press freedom and the public’s right to know.

“In many situations, the publishing of the name of someone under investigation has led to other witnesses and victims coming forward.” He added: “It is vital that the actions of the police should be kept under scrutiny in a free society and this change in the law will make that much harder.”

READ MORE: BBC would be ‘crazy’ to appeal Sir Cliff Richard ruling, Lord Patten warns

Lawyer Nicola Cain, who works at law firm RPC, said: “This is a landmark judgment in many ways, all of which are bad for the media.”

She added: “The media is going to have to walk on eggshells when reporting on police investigations from now on.”