
Sir Cliff Richard has revealed the devastating impact of his four-year legal battle with the BBC after it finally came to an end today, saying he 'won't go anywhere near children' again.

The popstar said the harrowing toll of the case on his day-to-day life means he will 'never completely recover' from the ordeal and he no longer comes into contact with other people's children for fear of the repercussions.

His words came after a High Court judge ruled the BBC had invaded his privacy by broadcasting a police raid of his Berkshire home live on TV after he was linked to a child sex abuse claim.

No charges were ever brought against the 77-year-old and he was today awarded £210,000 in damages. The corporation could be left with a bill of up to £5million after the case dragged on for so long.

Mr Justice Mann said the BBC had infringed the star's privacy rights in a 'serious and sensationalist way' and increased the damages because the corporation boasted about its 'scoop of the year' at an awards event.

Speaking to ITV News straight after the decision, he said: 'I used to use it [a tunnel linking Centre Court and Court One at the Wimbledon tennis tournament] regularly to go and see the matches I was interested in on Court One and it went right past the ball boys dressing room.

'I won't go there now. I won't go anywhere near children. Why? I've spent my whole life hugging people's grandchildren.'

Sir Cliff Richard has won his High Court privacy battle against the BBC and was awarded £210,000 damages today over its coverage of a police raid on his Berkshire home in August 2014 as part of a child sex allegation, in which he was never charged

Sir Cliff (pictured today) said he was still getting over the emotion of it all after his lawyer slammed the BBC in a statement

The popstar, who was supported by long-time friend Gloria Hunniford (pictured, right, today), will get £210,000 in damages

The BBC is considering an appeal against the judgment and who pays the legal costs of the case will be decided at a hearing next week.

BBC Director of News Fran Unsworth branded the ruling a 'dramatic shift against press freedom' adding: 'It means police investigations, and searches of people's homes, could go unreported and unscrutinised.'

An overwhelmed Sir Cliff hugged friends after the judge gave his decision and told reporters outside London's High Court he was 'choked up', adding: 'I can't believe it. It's wonderful news.'

His fans gathered outside the court building and even sang 'congratulations' as he walked out earlier today.

He later spoke exclusively to ITV, saying: 'They [senior managers] have to carry the can. I don't know how they are going to do it, but they'll have to. If heads roll then maybe it's because it was deserved...It's too big a decision to be made badly. It was nonsense.'

How much will fighting the case cost the BBC? A judge will decide how much of Sir Cliff's spiralling legal fees will be paid by the BBC after a hearing next Thursday. It was previously claimed Sir Cliff was seeking more than £600,000 from the BBC - £250,000 in compensation, £278,000 legal costs and £108,000 for PR. Sir Cliff has previously claimed he spent £3.4million clearing his name. The BBC will also have hired its own barristers for the long-running High Court battle, racking up legal fees estimated to have run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Advertisement

Sir Cliff took legal action against the BBC over the live broadcast of a South Yorkshire Police raid on his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, in August 2014, following a child sex assault allegation.

He was never arrested or charged and his case was discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service in June 2016.

Mr Justice Mann ruled today: 'I find that Sir Cliff had privacy rights in respect of the police investigation and that the BBC infringed those rights without a legal justification.

'It did so in a serious way and also in a somewhat sensationalist way. I have rejected the BBC's case that it was justified in reporting as it did under its rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.'

The judge awarded Sir Cliff £210,000 damages for the 'general effect' on his life and said he is entitled to recover further sums for the financial impact on the star, which will be decided at a later date.

The judge said £20,000 of the damages were due to the BBC aggravating the case by nominating the story for a 'Scoop of the Year' award at the Royal Television Society Awards.

It was previously claimed Sir Cliff was seeking more than £600,000 from the BBC - £250,000 in compensation, £278,000 legal costs and £108,000 for PR. He has previously claimed he spent £3.4million clearing his name.

The BBC will also have its own huge legal bill for the long-running case, meaning the cost to the corporation is expected to top £1million.

The £210,000 damages award is thought to be one of the highest ever awards in a UK privacy case.

In one of the most high-profile previous cases, Max Mosley was awarded £60,000 in 2008 after the News of the World accused him of taking part in a 'sick Nazi orgy'.

It is understood damages awarded to victims of phone hacking have been higher, although the amount paid out in the those cases has remained private, with lawyers saying only that they run into 'six figures'.

Sir Cliff took legal action against the BBC after reporter Dan Johnson covered a South Yorkshire Police raid on the star's home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, in August 2014, following a child sex assault allegation

Footage from a BBC helicopter on the day of the raid showed police at the star's home while he was away in Portugal

The BBC's project manager Declan Wilson, reporter Dan Johnson and Head of Newsgathering Jonathan Munro attended the case in April this year

'This isn't compatible with liberty': BBC warns ruling could have chilling impact on freedom of the press BBC Director of News Fran Unsworth warned the ruling could change the way police actions were reported by the media The BBC's Director of News and Current Affairs Fran Unsworth has described today's ruling as a 'dramatic shift against press freedom'. She said: 'We are sorry for the distress that Sir Cliff has been through. We understand the very serious impact that this has had on him. 'We have thought long and hard about how we covered this story. On reflection there are things we would have done differently, however the judge has ruled that the very naming of Sir Cliff was unlawful. 'So even had the BBC not used helicopter shots or ran the story with less prominence, the Judge would still have found that the story was unlawful; despite ruling that what we broadcast about the search was accurate.' 'This judgment creates new case law and represents a dramatic shift against press freedom and the long-standing ability of journalists to report on police investigations, which in some cases has led to further complainants coming forward. 'This impacts not just the BBC, but every media organisation. 'This isn't just about reporting on individuals. It means police investigations, and searches of people's homes, could go unreported and unscrutinised. It will make it harder to scrutinise the conduct of the police and we fear it will undermine the wider principle of the public's right to know. It will put decision-making in the hands of the police. 'We don't believe this is compatible with liberty and press freedoms; something that has been at the heart of this country for generations. 'For all of these reasons, there is a significant principle at stake. That is why the BBC is looking at an appeal.' Advertisement

Speaking after the decision, Sir Cliff's lawyer Gideon Benaim said that, after 60 years in the public eye, Sir Cliff never expected to have his 'privacy and reputation tarnished in such a way'.

Sir Cliff's lawyer spoke on his behalf, while the star declined to comment fully immediately after the case had ended, saying only: 'It's going to take me a little time to get over the whole emotional factor.'

He later spoke exclusively to ITV news, saying he was 'horrified' when he found out about the police raid and would 'rather been burgled'. The singer also admitted he 'innocently thought it would blow over'.

The star slammed the BBC for 'abusing freedom of speech' and described their decision making as 'anarchic'.

He said: 'I will fight to the death against the abuse of the freedom of speech, what the BBC did was an abuse because it seems to ignore anything that was ever stated - Magna Carta, Leveson, the police and they took it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner.'

'Freedom without responsibility is anarchy. To me this was an anarchic thing to do.'

Speaking straight after leaving court, he told the news channel he is 'not over' the ordeal, and does not feel 'triumphant' about it.

'We're going to have walk on egg shells from now on': Media bosses and expert lawyers slam Sir Cliff privacy decision as a dark day for journalist and press freedom Media bosses and specialist lawyers have slammed Mr Justice Mann's ruling on Sir Cliff Richard's privacy case, which they claim is a dark day for press freedom. Nicola Cain, who works at law firm RPC, said: 'This is a landmark judgment in many ways, all of which are bad for the media. 'The media is going to have to walk on eggshells when reporting on police investigations from now on. 'The judge found that even if an investigation involves public activity, and reporting on it is in the public interest, an individual can still have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being identified. 'This goes against several previous decisions which recognised the importance to the media of identifying individuals in coverage.' The Society of Editors agreed and warned of 'worrying consequences' journalists investigating criminal allegations. Ian Murray, executive director of the society, said: 'The ruling to make it unlawful that anyone under investigation can be named is a major step and one that has worrying consequences for press freedom and the public's right to know. 'While the judge, Mr Justice Mann, made it plain that the court felt the BBC's coverage of the police raid on Sir Cliff's home was sensational, and the BBC have admitted they have lessons to learn and have apologised to the star for the distress he has been through, to go as far as to make it unlawful that anyone under investigation can be named is extreme. 'Certainly, such a major change in the law should be debated in Parliament and not come into force following one case involving a high-profile celebrity. 'In many situations, the publishing of the name of someone under investigation has led to other witnesses and victims coming forward. We should also consider that the reverse is true. 'It is vital that the actions of the police should be kept under scrutiny in a free society and this change in the law will make that much harder.' Not all legal experts think the judgment will have such far-reaching consequences. Jon Oakley, of Simkins law firm, which represented Sir Cliff, said: 'The BBC has suggested that this judgment means it is a dark day for press freedom. That's simply not correct. 'Where there is a genuine public interest in people being named - for example, where there is imminent risk or danger to the public - the press rightly continues to be free to identify the person being investigated. 'However, after very careful consideration, the judge found that any such public interest does not exist on the facts of this particular case. 'Therefore, rather than heralding any change in the law, we believe what this case represents is confirmation of what has already been the legal position for some time.' Advertisement

He added: 'I don't feel any kind of triumph. It was triumph in one respect. But for me I don't feel so triumphant that I should gloat. And so I'm not going to.'

Sir Cliff said he 'always found it hard' to process the fact he was suing the BBC, because he still watches its TV output to catch up with current affairs.

He told ITV: I have always found it hard to say I was going to sue the BBC because for me the BBC are the people that work there.

'I listen to the show. Depending on the time zone I'm in, I catch up with news in Australia or America. I watch BBC World News. That's the BBC to me.

'But there has to be something done that says you cannot do this again, you must not do it again.'

Sir Cliff had been greeted by fans at the entrance of the High Court this morning, and was supported by long-time friend Gloria Hunniford.

Ms Gloria Hunniford later told Loose Women: 'He said to me, 'I prayed every single night for four years that truth would out'. That was a really important statement.

'He was so excited. We were all shaking and excited. Then as he went down to face the press... and the lawyer read out the citation... I think he (Sir Cliff) just wasn't able to speak.'

She said: 'I don't think he'll truly get over it... I don't think you get over four years of turmoil like that. He's such a lovely man. He's a good honest man. I think he took it so much to heart.'

'When he heard the accusations being made against him and what the BBC had done he just collapsed in tears, as indeed he did today.'

The presenter added: 'He has spent £4million of his own money on lawyers' fees... I hope his life begins again as from now.'

Sir Cliff clasped his hands together as he arrived to hear the judge's decision this morning. he took the BBC to court after they broadcast live from outside his home during a police raid

Sir Cliff said he just wanted the BBC to apologise and didn't want to spark court action

Sir Cliff was also supported by radio presenter Paul Gambaccini, who himself spent a year on bail before being told he would not face charges following a sexual assault allegation

'He never expected after 60 years in the public eye to be tarnished in this way': Sir Cliff's full statement Speaking outside court, Sir Cliff's lawyer Gideon Benaim said: 'Sir Cliff is of course very pleased with the Court's judgment today, in which the Judge concluded that, and I quote, 'the BBC went in for an invasion of Sir Cliff's privacy rights in a big way'. 'Mr Justice Mann's ruling is that the BBC's conduct was unlawful and a very serious invasion of privacy rights. The case clearly confirms that individuals, including high profile ones, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to police investigations. 'What transpired in August 2014 resulted from decisions taken by only a small number of people at the BBC. However, it was as a direct result of those decisions that the impact on Sir Cliff over the last four years was so profound. Sir Cliff with his lawyer Gideon Benaim outside the High Court in London today 'He never expected after 60 years in the public eye that his privacy and reputation would be tarnished in this way, and that he would need to fight such a battle. 'Although he felt it necessary to pursue this case and the sum awarded in damages is one of the highest ever in this area of law, Sir Cliff's motivation was not for personal gain, as he knew all along that he would be substantially out of pocket no matter what. 'His aim has been to try to right a wrong, and, to ensure as best he could, that no other innocent person would have to endure what he went through. 'What Sir Cliff wanted was for the BBC to acknowledge that what it had done to him was unlawful. Before litigation commenced we asked the BBC to accept this and to apologise. 'Sir Cliff would have been reasonable in relation to damages had they agreed to do so. Not only did they refuse to apologise but they were defiant, repeatedly telling the world that this was public interest journalism, when it was not. They even submitted the story for an award, which the Judge found to be an aggravating factor. Speaking outside court, Sir Cliff said it would take time to get over 'the emotional factor' 'The Judge came to the clear conclusion that Sir Cliff's privacy rights were not outweighed by the BBC's right to freedom of expression, and, that there did not exist a public interest in identifying him. 'Given the adverse findings of fact by the Judge, serious questions ought to be asked about the BBC's focus on preserving their exclusive story at the expense of Sir Cliff's rights, as well as how the BBC came to advance such a factual case, including to the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2014. 'Additionally, whether senior executives exercised sufficient scrutiny over the activities of their journalist, and in approving and signing the BBC's Defence. 'We welcome today's Judgment, and Sir Cliff would like to wholeheartedly thank everyone who has supported him throughout, his family, friends and of course his fans. It has meant a huge deal to him. Thank you.' Advertisement

In his judgment, Mr Justice Mann found that the BBC was the 'more potent causer' of the damage to Sir Cliff and its breach of the singer's privacy was 'more significant' than South Yorkshire Police's.

He said reporter Dan Johnson 'knew, or ought to have known' that what he was getting from the police was 'exceptional' and was provided in breach of confidence.

The judge said of reporter Mr Johnson: 'He was, like any responsible reporter, anxious to get knowledge of, and become involved in, big stories, and in my view was anxious to make a bit of a name for himself by getting this story and bringing it home.

'I do not believe that he is a fundamentally dishonest man, but he was capable of letting his enthusiasm get the better of him in pursuit of what he thought was a good story so that he could twist matters in a way that could be described as dishonest in order to pursue his story.'

Mr Johnson, who the judge referred to as 'junior member of the news gathering team, covering the north of England', has been reporting from India and Bangladesh in recent months.

The judge said of the BBC's Gary Smith, one of Mr Johnson's bosses, that be became 'very concerned' almost 'obsessed' with 'scooping' their rivals.

Some of Sir Cliff's fans attended court and sang his hit song 'Congratulations' to the star after he left court

A number of fans turned out to support the singer, with one woman bringing her dog with a 'Congratulations Cliff' rosette

The judge also said the decision to publish was 'entirely the BBC's' and that the corporation 'chose the prominence given to the news'.

The judge assessed the responsibility for the damage caused to Sir Cliff as being split 65 per cent to 35 per cent between the BBC and SYP respectively.

Sir Cliff's lawyer Mr Benaim said the singer had originally wanted the BBC to apologise and admit wrongdoing, and only went to court after it failed to do so.

Radio DJ Paul Gambaccini, who himself spent a year on bail before being told he would not face charges following a sexual assault allegation, also attended court to support Sir Cliff.

Mr Gambaccini told Sky News Sir Cliff had initially been reluctant to sue the BBC, but felt it was necessary to stop suspects being named before they are charged.

During the trial of the issue, the court heard how, in late 2013, a man made an allegation to the Metropolitan Police, saying he had been sexually assaulted by Sir Cliff at Sheffield United's Bramall Lane stadium in 1985.

Metropolitan Police officers passed the allegation to South Yorkshire Police in July 2014.

Sir Cliff said he was 'choked up' at winning, adding: 'I can't believe it. It's wonderful news'

The star clasped his hands together as his lawyer spoke outside court this morning

BBC reporter Mr Johnson was given the details of the raid by the force and the BBC filmed police going into his Berkshire home while Sir Cliff was away in Portugal.

Police apologise for mistakes and 'distress suffered by Sir Cliff' South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Stephen Watson South Yorkshire Police has apologised to Sir Cliff Richard for the distress he suffered after he won his privacy claim today. Chief Constable Stephen Watson said: 'I note Mr Justice Mann's detailed and comprehensive judgement handed down today, Wednesday 18 July 2018. I fully accept his findings. 'I particularly welcome Mr Justice Mann's findings that all South Yorkshire Police officers and staff were found to have acted entirely honestly and were credible and reliable witnesses. 'At a very early stage of these proceedings, we accepted and apologised to Sir Cliff Richard for the mistakes we made in our attempts to protect the integrity of the police investigation and the rights of the complainant, balanced against Sir Cliff Richard's privacy rights. 'I would like to take this opportunity to again offer our sincere apologies for the distress Sir Cliff Richard has suffered.' South Yorkshire Police had earlier agreed to pay Sir Cliff £400,000 after settling a claim he brought against the force. Advertisement

Sir Cliff always denied the allegation and in June 2016 prosecutors announced he would face no charges.

His lawyer, Justin Rushbrooke QC, previously told the High Court the 77-year-old had sustained 'possibly permanent damage to his self-esteem' as a result of the BBC's coverage.

During the case, the corporation's lawyer Gavin Millar QC previously told the court Sir Cliff had no 'reasonable expectation' of not being named as a suspect.

During the trial of the privacy case in April, Sir Cliff had told High Court that coverage, which involved the use of a helicopter, was a 'very serious invasion' of his privacy.

The BBC had disputed his claims, with bosses saying coverage of the search of the apartment in Sunningdale, Berkshire, was accurate and his denials were always included.

Mr Justice Mann heard that South Yorkshire Police had agreed to pay Sir Cliff £400,000 after settling a claim he brought against the force.

Today's ruling could have widespread implications for how criminal investigations are reported in future.

Responding to today's decision, criminal defence lawyer, Robert Conway, of Vardags law firm, said: 'The police's own guidance clearly provides that in most cases a suspect's identity should remain confidential during an investigation stage.

'In this case there was no legitimate investigative purpose behind the disclosure of Sir Cliff's identity and the manner with which the police rode roughshod over their own guidance raises the clear need for an actual change in law to ensure the appropriate protection is in place to prevent such a serious breach of privacy occurring again.'

From mansion raid to High Court: Timeline of the case March 2014: South Yorkshire Police (SYP) receive an allegation against Sir Cliff Richard from Operation Yewtree - a Metropolitan Police investigation into historical sex offences in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal. The complainant alleges he was molested by Sir Cliff during an event led by US preacher Billy Graham at Sheffield United's Bramall Lane ground in the 1980s. June 2014: BBC reporter Dan Johnson receives a tip from a confidential source about Sir Cliff being investigated by police. The tip leads him to believe South Yorkshire Police is the force involved in the investigation. 9 July 2014: Dan Johnson has a conversation over the phone with SYP's head of communications Carrie Goodwin. Towards the end of the conversation, he asks her if Sir Cliff is 'on their radar'. 15 July 2014: Dan Johnson meets at police headquarters with Carrie Goodwin and Superintendent Matthew Fenwick, who is leading the investigation into Sir Cliff. 13 August 2014: Dan Johnson is notified that police will carry out a search of Sir Cliff's home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, the following day. 14 August 2014: Police officers carry out a search of the singer's home. The BBC broadcasts from the scene, using a helicopter to obtain footage of the search being conducted in the penthouse apartment. Sir Cliff sees the footage from a hotel in Portugal where he is on holiday. September 2014: Sir Cliff withdraws from a fundraising concert at Canterbury Cathedral which was due to be broadcast by the BBC. June 2016: The Crown Prosecution Service announces its decision not to bring any charges against Sir Cliff. July 2016: Sir Cliff instructs lawyers to seek damages from the BBC and South Yorkshire Police over their handling of the police raid. May 2017: The singer accepts £400,000 damages from South Yorkshire Police. The force offers its 'sincere apologies' to Sir Cliff. April/May 2017: Sir Cliff's case against the BBC is heard by Mr Justice Mann in London. Advertisement

'I thought it would blow over': Sir Cliff Richard's exclusive ITV interview on the 'horrors' of his four-year privacy battle with the BBC in full

Sir Cliff. You've hotfooted it here from the courtroom. How are you?

Yes I did. I'm ok. It was much more emotional than I thought. I found it very hard to speak outside the court. I said I will probably get over this shortly but I'm not over it at the moment. It was such a fantastic moment.

It was incredibly emotional for me to think that after three years, eleven months and four days, it's really finally over.

It was wonderful to have everything endorsed by the judge like that and I haven't wasted my time. I still feel it's another step in the direction of trying to make sure that innocent people are not put through what I'm put through.

It's been wonderful to finish in this way. We won well. I don't feel any kind of triumph. It was triumph in one respect. But for me I don't feel so triumphant that I should gloat. And so I'm not going to.

When you heard the outcome... After all you've been through what went through your mind?

I couldn't speak for a start. It was very, very difficult. My friends were there saying 'well done, well done'. My eyes were watering.

It was far more emotional than I thought. The break-in to my apartment was three years, eleven months, four days ago. I thought I'm past all that now, it's in my past, but I still find I can't speak about it too well. I'm controlling myself at the moment but I'm sure when I speak to people about this again I shall be weeping again.

It's just the most wonderful relief. Not just for me. The people I work with, my business manager, my secretary, my friends, my family. They've suffered it with me. I'm not sure they…deserve that. [chokes up, gets emotional].

It's all those that walked with you?

Yeah. Wimbledon must be cheering for me. The members at Wimbledon have been so kind to me too. Welcomed me back when I came back and I had the most wonderful time with them.

I'm sure they're swinging from the rafters as well. It's a relief for me and for all of us that we can get on with a life now that's stress free.

The stress has been ginormous. I still have a cough that I caught two years ago and it won't go away. I've had X-rays and chest scans and it's clear.

It may be psychological. Whatever it is it still affects me. I hope I don't get shingles again. It was an awful time.

To spend three years of very little sleep. In the first two years I managed to get an average of two hours sleep a day. I never went to sleep without thinking about it, I never got up without thinking about it. It's been an awful time but I'm hanging on to this.

Every single person I met always said to me 'go for it' and somebody said I was brave to take on the BBC. I don't think it was bravery, I just felt somebody made a mistake there.

It was a big, big mistake and of course I suffered for that mistake and they will now have to deal with that and I hope they don't think it's strictly at my expense.

I think that they made a huge mistake and I hope they recognise that mistake. If it saves someone else from going through this I'd be happy.

Do you think heads should roll at the BBC?

It's not for me to say really. I don't know where these people come from. I don't know what their backgrounds are. They're all in the BBC.

I have always found it hard to say I was going to sue the BBC because for me the BBC are the people that work there. I listen to the show. Depending on the time zone I'm in, I catch up with news in Australia or America.

I watch BBC World News. That's the BBC to me. It was not possible to sue an individual or individuals at the top of the chain but it's not for me to say heads should roll but there must be something done at that top echelon of people.

There has to be something done that says you cannot do this again, you must not do it again. I'm still not sure why they didn't have some sort of legal advice that would stop them. I was never even arrested let alone charged, and

I've had to suffer all of this. Financially and more importantly, emotionally. For what? Absolutely for doing zero. I never did what they claimed.

Your lawyer and judge made specific criticisms of senior management at the BBC. Are they the ones that have to carry the can?

They have to carry the can. I don't know how they're gonna do it but they'll have to. If heads roll then maybe it's because it's deserved.

Do you think it would be deserved?

I think it would because it's too big a decision to have made badly. It was nonsense. Particularly as we knew, the BBC knew, that the police were not going to name me. It's not part of their regime to name people who are not charged.

Sometimes it gets in the way of an investigation and I understood all of that but somehow or another the BBC decided they would name me. I mentioned it when I gave my evidence.

It seemed to me there was a great deal of arrogance there in that they took no notice of the police, they obviously didn't read again the Leveson report, which states clearly that except in exceptional cases no one should be named unless they're charged.

And of course our laws are based on Magna Carta and King John said all of us are innocent, he went further, we are innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

There's a group of us and there are armies of innocent people who have had to go through this – a few of us Paul Gambaccini, myself, we are trying to see if we can get something to make sure that people aren't named until they have enough against them to take a prosecution.

Take me back to 2014…the moment when you realised what was happening.

When I first heard there was an accusation, I thought it can't go anywhere because I don't do that sort of thing and I don't have any background at all of that kind of activity. I innocently thought it would blow over, they can't possibly make anything of it.

Then it stretched on and on. It's hard to explain what it was like. I didn't want to see anybody. I was highly embarrassed.

When the weeks and months went by I thought some people are going to believe this. Some people are going to use that ridiculous statement 'there's no smoke without fire'.

I comforted myself as best I could but it was the most helpless, hopeless feeling I've ever had. I took comfort from things I'd read in the bible… I believe institutions like the BBC are things that we should trust, we should trust major institutions. That's how I feel now. Leading up to that was all the helpless, hopeless feelings.

The point at which you saw images of your home being played out… take me back to that moment?

I was in Portugal when it happened. I didn't see it initially but I saw it later. So I found myself looking at it thinking 'this is unbelievable'.

I couldn't look at it again in court. I had to stay away from it. To watch people… I'd rather have been burgled to be honest.

To watch people…they wore blue gloves and were looking through drawers and cupboards. You could see them clearly. It was just horrifying for me. I only went back to that apartment once to get all my possessions. I sold it at considerable loss. I couldn't live there. I live somewhere else now.

To see your home at that point…when you're one step removed...

It was impossible, a very hard to deal with, knowing this was all happening in Britain. Then discovering of course, if we saw it here, how long would it take until it got to Australia?

Would it be one, two, three hours and she [my friend] said 'think seconds, think seconds'. That story about me went all over Europe, South East Asia, Australia, New Zealand. It's hard to explain how that feels to me.

I spent so long trying to do things right [chokes up]. To be an ambassador for Britain and I think I have been am ambassador and I will always be but it was such a shock to think how can I undo this? [emotional] It seems an impossible thing to undo.

Of course over the following years I have realised now that actually no people believed it but that didn't help me at the time.

And when I think about it now, there's always going to be a tarnish. I can't fully recover from this because of the internet.

There are people on the internet who just make up things. Even one of the pieces of evidence said they looked my name up on the internet and heard rumours about me and I'm thinking 'and that started the investigation by the BBC?'.

If you look on the internet, I don't do this but my friends say you can read nasty things about every celebrity. It's something they say about everyone. They are cruel to people who have something, whether it's a gift or a look. I feel sorry for those people.

You spoke vividly in court of the moment the gravity of the situation hit you and you fell to your knees in your kitchen..?

It was a strange thing - the nearest thing to fainting. I couldn't stand up. I let myself go and found myself on the floor.

That's when I thought 'I'm in a hole I didn't dig, I don't know how deep this hole is and I don't know how to get out of it'. It's a horrible, horrible sensation. I've never been depressed. Throughout this whole thing I've never been depressed.

I've been shocked and horrified and helpless and hopeless but I always had a feeling that the truth would out.

Today it came true that the truth has come out that I need never have gone through this. That's the frustration as well. I need never have gone through this.

The impact on your life… on your charity work…the way you live your life…there were some tough moments.

It was a big shift for me. I didn't always think it would affect charity work I might be involved in. It never crossed my mind like that.

There were blips of things like the charity work. I was about to extend a book I wrote ten years ago and that all fell through. I have a winery and people stopped taking my wine. My calendar wasn't taking.

That upset me most of all – my calendar! They sent it back I think. I'm joking, it wasn't the calendar alone but little blips happen which remind you how serious this has been for someone like me.

There was a children's charity that asked you not to attend an event?

Yes. I won't name them but I was a patron and had always supported that charity. They took children to Disneyland and Disneyworld.

It was an annual event. Some of these children will never walk again, some may not be alive now, but it gave them that last glimpse of what children want. That magic. I was part of that and then just after I was cleared really they asked me not to come that year.

I found that really difficult to cope with. Maybe it is an embarrassment for you but it's now an embarrassment for me so I will quietly resign and you can get on because it's a great charity and that's why I won't name them.

It's that moment where you go from being a national treasure to some people being embarrassed to have you on board. How do you compute that?

I still can't compute something like that. Especially as everything had finished really other than this court case with the BBC. I can't figure out what it was.

Again, somebody at the top probably made a mistake. I'm being as gentle as I can be. I can't see any sensible person not having been there. It didn't make sense to me. It's still hard for me to articulate what I feel about that.

People make mistakes and that's the way it is. The only thing now is that I know the mistake can lead to something I've been through and it shouldn't happen. I quoted in my evidence a judge from way back and he said he'd rather that ten guilty people escape than one innocent person suffer.

And I'm thinking 'that's what I've been through. 'I'm one innocent person but I'm not one. There's an army of us out there who had to go through something like this.

Obviously people like myself we're recognised by other people, we're loved by some and disliked by others, but we're known and therefore it becomes a little more difficult to be an innocent person in that form. It becomes so public. It becomes just so embarrassing.

Let's look at the ramifications of this. You could singlehandedly curtail press freedom?

Does anybody want to do that? I don't want to do that. I want a correction made to what happened to me and it was made.

Nobody said anything about freedom of speech but I will fight to the death against the abuse of the freedom of speech.

What the BBC did was an abuse because it seemed to ignore everything ever stated by Magna Carta, Leveson, the police. They took it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner. That's the abuse of it.

The press needs to be able to cover investigations... to scrutinise the police…

Yes but not those who are being investigated. That's clear from this judgement, even I, and I believe the opposition tried to say because I was a prominent figure I didn't deserve the privacy that the man in the street has. I may be prominent but I am not fodder.

I refuse to be fodder. That's the mistake they make. We have to stop being women and men. As soon as you start being human you realise that's what counts.

A journalist has to be a human being so you can cover the story. Police told them there was an investigation going on but they didn't have to tell the world who was being investigated.

We wouldn't be talking about this now if they had not named me and the investigation had gone on. It was thrown out eventually.

No one would have known I was investigated and I would never have gone through the emotional trauma this has caused me. It's going to take a while.

Even now, I can't believe I'm not over it yet. The press and journalism even television. Everyone has to be very careful now about how they treat people as human beings.

But we know the context in which this investigation emerged don't we? We know the cases in which the person being investigated was named and other victims in those circumstances came forward and built the case…

But in the end they were found innocent though in many cases.

But some of them weren't Sir Cliff. Some of them weren't…

Ten guilty and one innocent, that's my big argument. I'd rather ten guilty people get away with it than one innocent person suffer.

There is no reason for that. If the police had found enough to prosecute me, I would have been charged and then I could have been named and if you're charged, it might take two years, your name is out, where other victims could come forward if it's true and even then the court of law could pass that person as innocent.

What message does that send out to the victims in those cases where there have been convictions? Like Rolf Harris, like Max Clifford...

I've worked with so many charities that deal with victims, rape victims, child molestation, what we have to do is stop the fake accusers.

They are spoiling it for the actual real people who are molested and victimised. That's the problem we have and how do you clear that up? You can't really.

Many of the charges that came of me, there was never any proof. It was one person's word against another person's word.

Supposing I was a molester of children…I may have got away with it but I probably wouldn't have. I still think you and everyone else has to do is think of us all innocent until we are proven guilty.

The BBC very expressly said you firmly denied all allegations, at every stage in their reporting.

Yes, yeah, it didn't help me at all. I've been through four years of absolute turmoil. We need never have had a court case.

I desperately wanted them to apologise and say 'we got it wrong'. The South Yorkshire Police proved to be bigger than the BBC.

Not the BBC, the people at the top of the BBC, I'm not talking about the workforce that make the BBC.

The South Yorkshire Police publically in court declared they had made a big mistake and they apologised for putting me through unnecessary stress. I have still received no apology from the BBC. Maybe now I will.

They apologised for the distress…

No they were sorry that I was stressed but not that they caused it. They didn't just help it, they caused most of it.

Are you really saying you would not wish victims come forward…to build a police case against a person who in these circumstances was guilty?

When they are charged, that's when it should happen. Then the police have enough evidence to prove it's true.

That's what the investigation does. Therefore I was named unnecessarily. You're right, victims must come forward but they also have to be tested.

The BBC knew this investigation was going to happen. Can you imagine the uproar if the BBC had known about it and kept this story quiet?

Only if I was guilty there would be an uproar surely?

But it was simply about putting a story out there about one of the nation's biggest celebrities as a matter of public interest?

But it's a lie against one of the biggest celebrities in our nation. It's a lie. You can't possibly motivate anything in my mind to say that was correct.

I think it was a big, big mistake. You can't have huge institutions. You can't have law and judges who are going to make mistakes.

That's part of our democracy. It's freedom of expression…

What about my freedom? We can talk about freedom. Freedom goes all sorts of ways. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy. It's anarchy. To me this was an anarchic thing to do.

You will be pressing for a change in law?

It's a rule that's already there. It's a rule by Leveson…'except in exceptional cases people should not be named until unless they are charged'.

Even if it prevents others coming forward and building a case.

I can't answer that because they will have the opportunity once you're charged. Once you're charged, your name will be public and any victims can come forward. I'm speaking on behalf of the innocent.

What about the scrutiny of the Police…

The South Yorkshire Police. It's another whole story. I still don't know why it ever happened.

I had four years of suffering having done nothing. The BBC surprised me because I've worked so much with them. They must have known I didn't have a background at all of that kind of activity.

I'm fighting for myself and I'm fighting for the man in the street. When I got the chance [in court] to talk about money, I was trying to explain how much I'd spent knowing I can't get it back. To me, it's the greatest bit of charity work I'll ever do.

I have spent £4million trying to make sure the innocent man in the street, who can't afford to do what I have had to do... That's what I'm fighting for all the time.

Briefly, you didn't get the full compensation you were aiming for?

I didn't expect that really. It was a very serious charge so I took it very seriously and I was prepared. I didn't think it was going to go as far as £4million pounds though but I was prepared to do it.

Will you recover from this?

I'm sure I'll recover. There are aspects in my life I recognise now for instance. In Wimbledon there is a tunnel between Centre Court and Court One.

I used to use it regularly to go and see the matches I was interested in on Court One and it went right past the ball boys dressing room.

I won't go there now. I won't go anywhere near children. Why? I've spent my whole life hugging people's grandchildren.

But because of this thing now… There's aspects of my life now even when I'm having photographs taken I try not to make contact.

That's an extraordinary thing for you to explain.

It's taken something away from me. One of the easiest things for me to do is give pleasure to people. It's by singing but also by having photographs with people, by hugging their babies. It's such a simple thing to do yet you give pleasure by that.

It's been removed from me. I'm sure I'll get over that. I must get over that, that's ridiculous, but at the moment I can't do it.

I have pictures taken but I stand slightly away and don't touch and smile and do all that. There's aspects of my life I can get over but I'm never going to forget it.

How can I forget what's been the most horrible, disastrous thing that's ever taken place in my life.

All the more frustrating because I tried to do everything the correct way. I didn't get drunk, drugged, sleep around. I tried to be respectful. I didn't just try. I did it. I was a good ambassador for Britain.

What was the worst moment in all of this?

The worst moment was when I collapsed on my kitchen floor. That was when it suddenly hit me that I was in this mess and I couldn't figure how to answer it because the question was wrong. I didn't do anything like that.

That was the most disastrous. Fortunately I had friends staying who said 'get up, you're not guilty, you can get through this'.

Was the 'old life' over for you… When you looked back on this extraordinary career?

I don't think it's going to have an effect on my future career. It's coming to an end isn't it? We're all dying. At some point I'm going to say goodbye.

My fans have been incredibly supportive. I really do believe that no one in Britain believed any of this.

I will be alright. I will survive it all. I have an album coming out with a track called Rise Up… I'm not dead. I can be stronger because of this.

Can you forgive the BBC?

I probably will do. I'll have to think about it though. There were four or five of them. It's the fact they wilfully knew, they knew something.

I can't see how they can excuse themselves for overriding the police. Overriding the Leveson report. Overriding Magna Carta. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt.

I'm starting by even suggesting they made a mistake. People make mistakes and I can forgive a mistake. If they said to me 'we're really sorry, we made a mistake' but I felt no remorse during the court case.

I was brought to tears many times, I was choking up a lot because they spoke about me like I wasn't even there. There was no remorse. It was only that they were completely right and didn't care about me.

It may emerge that this process goes on for some time yet. Yes but I just hope the press don't think the freedom of speech is in danger here. It's not. It's their abuse of it that's in danger.

That's what I'll always fight. I've had so many things written about me and I should be used to it. Sometimes there is a bone of truth but most of it's not.

[BBC statement regarding an appeal is read out] What's your reaction to that?

Good luck to them. I can't see how they can change…If they've already said they've made mistakes... You can't give the freedom to the press and say 'you can say what you like about anybody' which is what happens now. It's not the freedom we want to lose.

It was the abuse of that freedom. This was an abuse. They should have followed the rules. They agreed they made some mistakes.

The worst thing they did, the most disastrous thing they did, which has now been ruled by the judge, the most unlawful thing they did was to name me before I was has charged.

So, they are looking to an appeal now. To come back to you and your remarkable career. It's evident those people who have stood shoulder to shoulder with you... Some were behind you at court…

I'll say this. I've been supported by our nation really. I'm grateful that support was there for me when I really needed it.

My family who obviously new this was not true. My close friends. I've never met anybody who believed what was put out by the BBC about me. I'm grateful to all of them.

I had the support of so many people. One of the lawyers rang me two months in and said we've never worked with anybody who was 100% public support. I've had a fantastic support system. As for the BBC appeal…let them appeal.

Tonight when you go home, close the door...

I've been reflecting for quite a while since the CPS threw out the whole thing. It gave me a chance to breathe again.

I've reflected many many times. I'll be reflecting for the rest of my life. Today and what happened in the last four years.

It won't be an easy thing to forget. I can't feel I'll ever recover entirely but if we can make this change... I'm not against the press. We need the press.

You need the press…

But I don't trust them as much as I used to…

On a very human level… when you can let your shoulders drop…

I'll close my eyes and hope I sleep but I will have thought of today. The great joy and throat wrenching emotional time for me.

What I'm doing tonight is something rather nice. I'm taking out a bereaved friend for dinner. And that's nice for me. That surpasses real life.