The police inquiry into Sir Cliff Richard came under mounting criticism on Saturday night after Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, called its handling of the case “odd” and “very questionable”.
Grieve, who left the Cabinet last month, accused the police of colluding with the BBC in a move which led to the search of Richard’s home in Berkshire being filmed by the corporation. Grieve, the most senior politician so far to cast doubt on the police tactics, suggested that the South Yorkshire force might even have been acting in breach of national guidelines in making public its investigation into an allegation that the singer sexually assaulted a boy at a concert almost 30 years ago.
The chorus of criticism grew with complaints by senior lawyers, politicians and fans that Richard was now being kept in a “cruel limbo” while police decide what to do next.
On Friday night, Richard, 73, remained in his villa in Algarve, Portugal, with his manager, long-time companion and sister offering support. Sources close to the singer said he had yet to be formally asked to return to Britain for a police interview.
South Yorkshire has insisted it is “seeking to speak” to him about the complaint made by his alleged victim more than a year ago. It is thought Richard will eventually be questioned under caution but sources close to him expressed frustration they remained in the dark about the precise nature of the allegations and how long the inquiry might last.
Ongoing probe
A police spokesman said: “We cannot give details about the conversations we’ve had with the person in question. The investigation is ongoing and contact with him will form part of that.”
Richard first became aware of the inquiry when he heard reports that his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, was being raided at lunchtime on Thursday while he was in Portugal. The BBC had a news crew stationed at the scene in readiness for detectives arriving and broadcast live footage from an overhead helicopter.
Grieve said on Friday: “I can see that police might not want to warn somebody about a search because they fear a suspect will destroy the evidence. But it was much odder to tip off the BBC that they were carrying out the raid.
“That seems quite extraordinary. I have no reason to think they are acting capriciously, but I think it was odd to notify the BBC so they could have journalists there to film the events. Unless the police can show the public sound reason for doing that it suggests a collusive relationship with the BBC which is very odd.
“The BBC’s presence is not required. The police have not arrested him or charged him. All they have done is carry out a search of his house, so why have they notified the BBC so it could film this operation taking place? I simply don’t understand it. It is very questionable.”
He added: “The police have their own ground rules and I think if you look at the ACPO [Association of Chief Police Officers] guidelines, they cover this.”
What the rules say
According to the official guidance on the ACPO website: “Police forces must balance an individual’s right to respect for a private and family life, the rights of publishers to freedom of expression and the rights of defendants to a fair trial. Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis but, save in clearly identified circumstances, or where legal restrictions apply, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public.
“Such circumstances include a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime or a matter of public interest and confidence.”
South Yorkshire police has admitted it had “worked with” the BBC in advance of the raid on Richard’s flat — Jonathan Munro, the corporation’s head of newsgathering, has denied that the force was the source of their tip-off.
Nigel Evans, the Conservative MP, who was cleared of sex offences after a trial this year, said Richard would be enduring “torture and torment” after watching his home being raided. He was now left in a situation “worse than limbo”.
“Sir Cliff Richard must be wondering exactly what the hell is going on,” he said. “I would have thought that the request would have gone in by now to speak to him. It’s not as if Sir Cliff has not said that he’s ready to cooperate with anything they want. All we need now is to find out what they want.”
‘Cruel limbo’
Geoffrey Robertson QC, a leading human rights lawyer, questioned the police tactics. He said: “If the outrageous treatment of Paul Gambuccini and Jimmy Tarbuck is any guide, Cliff Richard will remain in a cruel limbo for 18 months or so until the police and the Crown Prosecution Service decide whether to charge him.”
Fans rallied to support the singer on his official Facebook site.
Louise Nicklinson wrote: “I know that you are innocent — so just know that all of your devoted fans will stand and support you all the way.”
Laurie Holloway, a musical director who worked for the BBC and a close friend, wrote on Facebook: “How dare these people and officials cause a slur on him which will be difficult to erase?”
The naming of Richard was also criticised by Jill Saward, herself a victim of rape and a campaigner on the rights of victims. She said: “I don’t think it’s right to have publicised it before somebody has even been questioned, I don’t believe that that is the right way ahead. But I think it’s important that from the moment somebody is questioned that we are made aware of the name of that person so that it can encourage other people to come forward.”
She added: “To know that other people out there have been through something similar makes it so much easier to feel that you will be believed.”
Explanation sought
On Friday night, Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, said he was writing to David Crompton, the force’s chief constable, to demand an explanation of its actions, saying “serious questions need to be asked” about the handling of the matter.
On Friday night, a spokesman for South Yorkshire Police said: “The force was contacted some weeks ago by a BBC reporter who made it clear he knew of the existence of an investigation. It was clear he was in a position to publish it. The force was reluctant to cooperate but felt that to do otherwise would risk losing any potential evidence, so in the interests of the investigation, it was agreed that the reporter would be notified of the date of the house search in return for delaying publication of any of the facts.
“Contrary to media reports, this decision was not taken in order to maximise publicity, it was taken to preserve any potential evidence. South Yorkshire Police considers it disappointing that the BBC was slow to acknowledge that the force was not the source of the leak. A letter of complaint has been sent to the director-general of the BBC making it clear that the broadcaster appears to have contravened its editorial guidelines. South Yorkshire Police would welcome an investigation into the original leak.”
The spokesman added that it “is an ongoing and complex investigation” that was likely “to take some time”.
