Referring to the potential consequences of the case in this regard Rupert argues that, “the dangers of trial by media, exemplified by the Bristol case of Christopher Jefferies in 2011, social media, or vigilante justice — take, for example, the recent anti-immigrant riots in Chemnitz resulting from the unauthorised police leak of an arrest warrant in a murder case — are real. But has the judgment in the Sir Cliff Richard case pushed the protection of the rights of suspects too far?”
Later in his article Rupert suggests that “…more police and indeed regulatory activity may pass unreported, for fear of substantial privacy damages claims on the back of the judgment. Such reporting as there is will be much more muted. This is not a happy state of affairs, given the desirability of knowing that protection of the public starts long before a case reaches court.”
If you’d like to read Rupert’s piece in its entirety (please note that this article is behind a paywall) click here to access it.
This information is necessarily of a general nature and doesn’t constitute legal advice. This is not a substitute for formal legal advice, given in the context of full information under an engagement with Bates Wells.
All content on this page is correct as of September 21, 2018.