by Francesca Cociani

The scandal

‍

On 6 July 2023 the Sun published their latest scoop headline “BBC crises over top star in sex photos probe” declaring that a “well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images”.

The story unambiguously alleged that the mystery presenter had paid a 17 year old vast amounts of money in exchange for sexual images, and that the cash was used to fund a crack habit. It added that the police was approached “but they couldn’t do anything as they said it wasn’t illegal”.

Whilst the Sun did not reveal the name of the presenter in question, it did state that he is “a familiar face who is known to millions” and is also paid a six-figure salary by the BBC.

These allegations were later denied by the lawyers representing the man in question, now 20 years old, and questions quickly became to surface as to what actual evidence was gathered or enquiries made to ascertain the voracity of the story.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003

Whilst it’s not illegal for an adult to engage in sexual communications with a person aged 17 years old, being possession of, producing or distributing sexual images of individuals under the age of 18 certainly is a criminal offence.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the age of illegality for indecent images from 16 to 18 years old, notoriously leading to the Sun newspaper to re-think whose photos they could publish on Page 3. One can’t help but look at the irony around the publishers of this, considering they too used to pay under 18 year old children in exchange for sexually provocative images before publishing them on thousands of printed copies.

Being in possession of indecent images alone attracts a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison, once guilty is either established by way of plea or conviction after trial. That is a trial in either Magistrates or Crown Court, not the court of public opinion.

Privacy & Human rights

It is ultimately right for the public to have an absolute right to the truth, and the media should play a fundamental role to facilitate this within a democratic society. For the same reason, criminal proceedings, save for a few exceptions (such as when the accused are under 18) are open to the public, including the daily Court list that contain defendants’ names and the type of hearing they have been summoned to court for.

Article 10 European Convention of Human Rights protects everyone’s rights to freedom of speech, incorporating the right to receive impart information by the media. There are nonetheless circumstances when this right can be interfered with by the state, such as in order to prevent the breach of other domestic laws, such as privacy ones. These broadly stem from another qualified Convention right – Article 8, protecting the right to a private and family life.

These rights interplay in way that has led the higher courts in this country to establish that individuals facing a criminal investigation do have a reasonable expectation to privacy up to the point of being formally charged with a criminal offence.

Ultimately there is a good reason for this – the threshold for an investigation to be launched against someone is far lower than the point at which a prosecuting authority officially decides there is a case to answer. When your reputation and livelihood are on the line, being spared from the social media gladiator arena is only reasonable, if the investigation is at its embryonic stage.

It is understandable for the public to feel apprehensive about the rich and powerful manipulating legislation in order to try and get away with murder. At the same time, encouraging the thirst for  mob justice even between David (famous presenter) and Goliath (vulnerable 17 year old) can become a dangerous slippery slope towards the undermining of democratic pillars no one would ever wish being taken away from them: the right to have a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  

Lessons to be learnt  

The Sun has handled this story in a way that conflated two very distinct conversations: whether the presenter is guilty of a serious criminal offence which was swept under the carpet by his employers, versus how we feel about the alleged behaviour, in the absence of a crime, from a moral or ethical point of view.

Whilst far from being perfect, the criminal justice system has been developing for decades, centuries even, in order to ensure that as close an idea to justice is upheld for all parties involved. On the other hand, the inherent objective of tabloid newspapers is that of publishing information in exchange for profit.

This creates a conflict of interest that naturally prevents newspapers such as the Sun from upholding the same principle of democratic justice that as a society we should strive for, however scandalous the circumstances may be.

Knowing that public hysteria is often the unavoidable consequence of breaking a story such as this, more care and consideration should be given both as to the consequences on an individual who ultimately remains innocent until proven otherwise, and crucially on the way it’s going to shape what we really want justice to look like in the current world.

Francesca Cociani is a Senior Associate at Hodge Jones & Allen

_{Updated on 10/3/26}