John McLellan, Director of Scottish Newspaper Society

“Twenty-four years ago, American TV viewers watched in amazement as Los Angeles police trailed a white Ford carrying American football ledger OJ Simpson for 60 miles, the cavalcade itself followed by helicopters carrying TV crews. Simpson had just been charged with killing his ex-wife and her lover.

Twenty years later BBC viewers were treated to a similar show as police swooped on the home of Sir Cliff Richard as part of an investigation into historic child abuse, except the singer had not been arrested or charged with anything.

Now that Sir Cliff has won his case for a “serious invasion” of privacy against the BBC, the corporation is claiming that the ruling marks a significant shift against Press freedom and the public right to know.

They may well be right, but in the BBC’s haste to restore its reputation following the Jimmy Savile disgrace, they and South Yorkshire Police have been the architects of this situation.

What else were viewers likely to conclude seeing aerial pictures of the singer’s home other than “there’s no smoke without fire,” or “he must have something to hide” and all the other assumptions that would come with such a massive effort to cover the story?

Thee is now a huge question mark over all news/police joint efforts, like fly-on the wall documentaries and on-patrol reporting involving anyone who is not found guilty. It won’t just be “Police, Camera, Action” but in future “Police, Camera Action, Lawyer.”

Unless this is challenged by an appeal, in England and Wales at least it potentially means the can be no identification of anyone involved in a police investigation until they have been arrested and charged, and then all the other restrictions kick in until a verdict has been reached.

It layers another privacy protection on top of existing safeguards and for the rich and powerful it could be an easy way to prevent any reporting of investigations, and not just sensational cases involving celebrities. Any media identification of people or companies alleged to have been involved with wrong-doing could now claim their privacy is being breached and it could kill investigative journalism stone dead.

The bar of a privacy breach is far lower than that of defamation, as proved in the Naomi Campbell case when she successfully sued the Mirror for breach of privacy in revealing her treatment for drug addiction despite making anti drug statements. Or Max Mosley, the motor racing chief who won his case against the News of the World, despite the story of his involvement in an orgy with five prostitutes being true bar one fact.

For claimants the privacy bar is already low but the over-zealous BBC has, by its own tacit admission, helped lower it further.”