Report comment

Disagree with some of the comments below... the BBC are probably right in concluding that an Appeal victory pyrrhic at best... But there are aspects of Mann's judgement that are troubling (i.e. his conclusion that there disclosing the mere fact of an investigation amounted to an invasion of Richard's privacy)... It would be a bold newspaper editor who, in the midst of a developing story, would now publish the name of (or other information about) a criminal suspect even if they felt a clear public interest case could be made for doing so... an outcome that's not necessarily conducive to a healthy civil society.

Materially, as factor in weighing up the privacy/public interest, I don't think it makes much difference if a person is (i) a suspect, (ii) a charged Defendant, either? I think that's actually a factor of relatively little significance unless the follow on argument is that an uncharged suspect is, in fact, entitled to keep the fact of the investigation private in perpetuity? If so, that feels even worse!

...To put it another way... say the BBC had not broadcast this matter... and say some author were to write a biography of Richard... is the position now that such a biographer would be obliged to omit potentially unsavoury (but factually truthful) episodes relating to their subject? Would publication become permissible with the passage of time (if the subject were still alive)?

A very problematic judgement, in my view.