News

YouGov Poll: Public backs Court’s decision in Cliff Richard Case, 86% favour investigation anonymity

25/07/2018

Newspaper
✕ Press claim

✓ The truth

Reach
Up to
people misled
Help us fight back

Join 71,384 others who are taking action to share the truth & raise standards in the press

1. Share the truth
Post this rebuttal on social media
2. Fund the fightback
Help us challenge more stories like this
Donate
3. Tell your MP
Send a ready-written email in 30 seconds
Email your MP

A YouGov opinion poll conducted on 19 and 20 July 2018 has shown overwhelming public support for pre-charge anonymity of suspects. The results are startling: 86% of respondents support the anonymity of suspects under inviestgation and 83% support the anonymity of those arrested.

Mr Justice Mann’s decision in Sir Cliff Richard v BBC that the claimant had a right to privacy when under investigation has been subject to almost universal criticism in the press. It has been suggested that this a serious threat to press freedom. Few media outlets have published the contrary view that the right to privacy of suspects should generally prevail.

The poll results show that the public has not been convinced by the one sided media coverage of the Cliff Richard judgment.

A striking feature of the poll is that, contrary to the current approach of the courts, a majority of the public (60%) favour post-charge pre-trial anonymity with 62% favouring anonymity for those on trial who have not yet been found guilty of an offence. This accords with the position in a number of other European countries.

It is only after conviction that the large majority favour the naming of individuals, with 88% in favour of the publication of the name at that stage.

As with press regulation (where a majority of the public favour statutory regulation) the press are out of step with their readers on an issue which involves their own interests.

The details of the polls are set out here:

The full results of the poll can be found here [pdf].

This piece was originally posted on Inforrm and is republished with thanks.

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News
When media abuse of academics becomes the norm in HE
Following the death of Jason Arday, Corinne Fowler writes on the toll of media abuse on academics and what universities must do to protect their staff.
8/19/26
News
IPSO ties itself in knots over Telegraph complaint
Media lawyer Jonathan Coad complained to IPSO about a Telegraph article claiming Hacked Off wants "state control" of the press. IPSO's response contradicted itself within the space of a few paragraphs.
8/14/26
News