Sir Cliff Richard cleared of historic sex assault claims after prosecutors drop case

Sir Cliff Richard cleared of historic sex assault claims after prosecutors drop case

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/sir-cliff-richard-cleared-of-sex-assault-claims-after-prosecutor/

Singer Cliff Richard will face no further action following the South Yorkshire Police investigation CREDIT: MARK THOMAS/REX SHUTTERSTOCK
list of article image 2

16 JUNE 2016 • 11:39AM
Sir Cliff Richard has been cleared of sex assault allegations after the Crown Prosecution Service announced it would bring no charges following a two-year police inquiry.

The 75-year-old singer will face no further action following the controversial South Yorkshire Police investigation into allegations of historical sexual abuse.

Prosecutors announced on Thursday morning that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute" the veteran entertainer after the police investigation that cost an estimated £800,000.

Sir Cliff said he is "obviously thrilled that the vile accusations" have been brought to a close" as he used his statement to say he had been "hung out like live bait" and called for those who are facing allegations to "never be named publicly until charged".

South Yorkshire Police apologised "wholeheartedly for the additional anxiety caused" to Sir Cliff by the force's "initial handling of the media interest" in its investigation into the singer, when the BBC was tipped off about a raid on his home and broadcast it live.

Sir Cliff said he is 'obviously thrilled that the vile accusations' have come to a close
The two-year police investigation into Sir Cliff Richard cost an estimated £800,000 CREDIT: DAVID DAVIES/PA
Sir Cliff’s Berkshire home was raided by South Yorkshire Police in August 2014 after they received a tip from Operation Yewtree, detailing an allegation that dated back more than quarter of a century.

Officers travelled from South Yorkshire in a convoy of unmarked vehicles and entered the private estate shortly after 1pm.

But within minutes of their arrival news of the raid was being broadcast on the BBC which had stationed a producer outside the Sunningdale property the previous evening.

It was later revealed that the force had cut a deal with the BBC in order to allow the filming of the raid.

An independent investigation subsequently criticised the arrangement for interfering with Sir Cliff’s privacy and causing unnecessary distress.

The Home Affairs Select Committee later described the police raid as “utterly inept”.

Full Sir Cliff Richard statement

In a statement, Sir Cliff said: "After almost two years under police investigation I learnt today that they have finally closed their enquiries.

"I have always maintained my innocence, co-operated fully with the investigation, and cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point!

"Nevertheless, I am obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close.

"Ever since the highly-publicised and BBC-filmed raid on my home I have chosen not to speak publicly.

"Even though I was under pressure to 'speak out', other than to state my innocence, which was easy for me to do as I have never molested anyone in my life, I chose to remain silent.

"This was despite the widely-shared sense of injustice resulting from the high-profile fumbling of my case from day one. Other than in exceptional cases, people who are facing allegations should never be named publicly until charged."

Cliff Richard sings at Cilla Black's funeralPlay! 03:56
He continued: "I was named before I was even interviewed and for me that was like being hung out like 'live bait'.

"It is obvious that such strategies simply increase the risk of attracting spurious claims which not only tie up police resources and waste public funds, but they forever tarnish the reputations of innocent people.

"There have been numerous occasions in recent years where this has occurred, and I feel very strongly that no innocent person should be treated in this way.

The CPS' announcement today doesn't go far enough because it doesn't expressly state that I am innocent; which of course I am
Sir Cliff Richard
"I know the truth and in some people's eyes the CPS' announcement today doesn't go far enough because it doesn't expressly state that I am innocent; which of course I am. There lies the problem.

"My reputation will not be fully vindicated because the CPS' policy is to only say something general about there being 'insufficient' evidence.

"How can there be evidence for something that never took place! This is also a reason why people should never be named publicly until they have been charged unless there are exceptional circumstances.

"To my fans and members of the public, to the press and media, all of whom continued to show me such encouraging and wonderful support, I would like to say "thank you" it would have been so much harder without you."

The accuser who claimed he was molested at a Christian rally

The original allegation came from a single complainant who alleged that when he was 16 he had been molested by the singer during a Christian rally.

The incident was said to have taken place when devout Christian, Sir Cliff, appeared as a special guest of the American evangelist Billy Graham in Sheffield in 1985.

But Sir Cliff vehemently denied the claims suggesting the complaint had been the result of false rumours that had been circulating online.

He was subsequently questioned about the allegation but heard nothing more from the South Yorkshire force, which insisted there was much work to do in order to investigate such an historic claim.

In February last year, the force disclosed that it was investigating more than one allegation, after other people came forward with claims against the singer.

In Thursday's CPS statement, it emerged that four men had made allegations dating between 1958 and 1983.

David Crompton, the scandal-hit police chief

David Crompton, who was the chief constable of South Yorkshire Police at the time of the raid on Sir Cliff’s home, was severely criticised for having allowed the BBC to film the proceedings.

Earlier this year, he was suspended from his post after it emerged that the force had spent £20 million trying to defend its actions during the inquiry into the Hillsborough tragedy.

His leadership had also faced questions over the forces handling of the Rotherham child abuse scandal.

Mr Crompton had been due to retire in November, but could now be dismissed after the force launched formal proceedings against him over the “erosion in public trust and confidence”.

Full South Yorkshire Police statement

In a statement, South Yorkshire Police said: "In May this year, South Yorkshire Police presented the final investigation files to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relating to four allegations of non-recent sexual abuse involving a 75-year-old man.

"After careful consideration of the evidence provided to them, the CPS has concluded that no further action should be taken against the man due to there being insufficient evidence to prosecute.

"A further five allegations considered by the investigation team did not meet the threshold for referral to CPS for a charging decision.

"South Yorkshire Police accept the decision of the CPS in this case and all those involved have been informed.

"The force apologises wholeheartedly for the additional anxiety caused by our initial handling of the media interest in this case and has implemented the learning from this and the subsequent review conducted by former Chief Constable Andy Trotter.

"Following an initial allegation received by the force in April 2014, South Yorkshire detectives have explored and gathered all information available and carried out a thorough and detailed investigation, which has covered the UK and abroad.

"The investigation, which has spanned two years, is estimated to have cost in the region of £800,000, including staffing costs."

The two-year police investigation into Sir Cliff Richard cost an estimated £800,000
Sir Cliff said he is 'obviously thrilled that the vile accusations' have come to a close CREDIT: BRIAN LAWLESS/PA
The force added: "Non-recent allegations are, by their very nature, complex and difficult matters to investigate and can take a considerable amount of time.

"We appreciate that waiting for a conclusion will undoubtedly have caused additional distress to all those involved and we have made every effort to ensure this has been as timely as possible.

"However, it is in the interests of justice to investigate such matters thoroughly. We have a duty to explore any allegations relating to sexual abuse and other crimes and will go wherever the evidence takes us in order to protect victims and stop offending.

"We encourage victims of non-recent abuse to have the confidence to come forward, knowing they will be listened to and that their allegations will be taken seriously and investigated. It is also important for those under investigation to know they will be treated fairly.

"Whilst recognising how difficult it is for a person to be under investigation and have their innocence publicly called into question, South Yorkshire Police acknowledges and takes seriously its responsibility to fully investigate allegations of non-recent abuse."

It still doesn't explain why he has taken up Barbadian citizenship or why "Kitty" appeared on the list of Elm Guest House.

I translate that report along the lines of 'we have evidence but not sufficient to guarantee a conviction in court'.

interested wrote:I translate that report along the lines of 'we have evidence but not sufficient to guarantee a conviction in court'.  

Probably right. If the CPS don't think that they have a very good chance of a conviction, they usually drop cases even though they have evidence but not enough.

Keela wrote:

interested wrote:I translate that report along the lines of 'we have evidence but not sufficient to guarantee a conviction in court'.  

Probably right. If the CPS don't think that they have a very good chance of a conviction, they usually drop cases even though they have evidence but not enough.

Just wondering if the decision can be appealed.

interested wrote:

Keela wrote:

interested wrote:I translate that report along the lines of 'we have evidence but not sufficient to guarantee a conviction in court'.  

Probably right. If the CPS don't think that they have a very good chance of a conviction, they usually drop cases even though they have evidence but not enough.

Just wondering if the decision can be appealed.  

Probably not, it takes money for that!

its the evidence. its not that the people aren't believed its the evidence of the act, and in that CR is right. he hasn't been cleared. for him it hasn't gone far enough. he wants an official he didn't do anything, which he isn't going to get.

One day the truth will come out. Unfortunately he wont be here, as per Clement Fraud.

CLIFF RICHARD HAS SAID HE WILL SUE BBC FOR 1MILLION POUNDS

We should sue him for his Christmas songs!

SteveT wrote:We should sue him for his Christmas songs!

I still say there is evidence but not enough for a conviction, which hardly makes him innocent. A lot like the McCanns who proclaim their innocence despite the findings of the dogs which can't be considered as evidence in court.

Like Jimmy Savil!e, the truth will eventually surface when he has departed IMO.

anyone actually considered that he may not have done anything wrong.

Marky wrote:anyone actually considered that he may not have done anything wrong.

Only me!

I am certainly not certain ,that he has done what he is still being accuse of from some people ,how can we Know ,its just lip service ,if we just hear one another.joyce1938

I'm not "certain" either but I would not be jury material because, in this case, I tend to think when there has been that much smoke, there is most probably fire. I wouldn't qualify as a jury member because if he is charged he is entitled to a fair trial and I don't believe I could be fair.

That's fair enough ,not all would so fair ,I am afraid ,joyce1938

saloongirl wrote:

Marky wrote:anyone actually considered that he may not have done anything wrong.

Only me!

hey gal. you been okay with the weather last couple days? 🤔

interested wrote:I'm not "certain" either but I would not be jury material because, in this case, I tend to think when there has been that much smoke, there is most probably fire.  I wouldn't qualify as a jury member because if he is charged he is entitled to a fair trial and I don't believe I could be fair.

you're a liberal. 😉

Marky wrote:

saloongirl wrote:

Marky wrote:anyone actually considered that he may not have done anything wrong.

Only me!

hey gal. you been okay with the weather last couple days? 🤔

No! Had a terrible storm in the night a few weeks ago, worst ever! Roll on Autumn. But thank you for asking. Hope you and Mrs Marky are well.

saloongirl wrote:

Marky wrote:

saloongirl wrote:

Marky wrote:anyone actually considered that he may not have done anything wrong.

Only me!

hey gal. you been okay with the weather last couple days? 🤔

No! Had a terrible storm in the night a few weeks ago, worst ever! Roll on Autumn. But thank you for asking. Hope you and Mrs Marky are well.

yup, both good thanks.

I would believe victims over the accused every time.

A boy who was 16 at the time, 31 years ago, said something to the police in a separate investigation a few years ago. Having publicized Cliff Richard's name only 3 others, over a 30 year period, claimed that they had been molested. Knowing that Cliff Richard has reasonable wealth I'd have expected many more to come out of the woodwork if he had harmed them.

I do appreciate that it is difficult to prosecute without evidence so long after the event however Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and Max Clifford were found guilty.

I'm no fan of Cliff Richard and his music, but I am a strong believer that you can have smoke without fire.