The BBC faces a bill of more than £1.5million and rising after it lost the latest round of its privacy battle with Sir Cliff Richard.

A judge threw out the BBC's plea to be granted an appeal after the corporation was found to have breached the veteran popstar's rights when it broadcast a police search of his home in Berkshire in 2014.

The BBC was today ordered to pay £850,000 of the 77-year-old singer's legal costs, on top of the £190,000 damages it is already due to pay him.

The licence fee-funded corporation also has to pay £20,000 'aggravated damages' for nominating the coverage for a 'scoop of the year' award, and more than £500,000 towards costs incurred by South Yorkshire Police.

This is before it begins paying its own legal bill for the long-running legal battle and the cost of any appeal is continues to bring.

An emotional Sir Cliff Richard after winning his case against the BBC last week but the corporation is to appeal

Police tipped off the BBC that they were raiding the Sunningdale property so the corporation was there waiting with its TV helicopter to film it

Lawyers representing the BBC said the case had widespread implications and should be examined by three senior judges.

Barrister Gavin Millar QC, who leads the BBC legal team, the damages award was 'wrong in law' and would have a 'chilling effect'.

He added: 'The risk is a severe chilling effect on the freedom of the press in relation to reporting police investigations.

But the judge, Mr Justice Mann, refused, finding that an appeal did not have a real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why it should be considered by a higher court.

The spiraling costs of the BBC's legal battle with Sir Cliff The costs of the case for the BBC are mounting by the day. - They have been ordered to pay the star £190,000 to cover the 'general effect' of the coverage. - Plus £20,000 because the BBC had aggravated harm by nominating coverage for an award. - The BBC has also agreed to pay £850,000 towards Sir Cliff's legal costs, a figure which could rise. - The corporation is also going to pay £315,000 to South Yorkshire Police for legal costs. - The costs don't include the amount the BBC has paid for its own QC, and any costs of continuing to appeal. Advertisement

Sir Cliff's lawyer, Justin Rushbrooke QC had told the court: 'It is about time the BBC took a realistic view of this matter.'

The police raid, which emerged after an exclusive tip off by officers and led to a TV helicopter being flown in, was part of a 2014 investigation into historical child sex allegations - but Sir Cliff was not arrested or charged.

Sir Cliff has suggested that senior BBC executives deserved to lose their jobs for putting him through 'the most horrible thing that's ever taken place in my life'.

After winning a landmark court battle over the broadcaster's coverage of a police raid on his home, the singer said a handful of BBC managers had acted as his 'judge, jury and executioner'.

Sir Cliff wept with relief last Wednesday after a judge ruled that the BBC had seriously infringed his privacy with its 'sensationalist' reporting of a historic child sex claim against him.

The broadcaster named the 77-year-old star as the subject of a police investigation - which was dropped two years later without Sir Cliff ever facing arrest or charge - and used a helicopter to cover the search of his home.

Jonathan Munro head of BBC Newsgathering, Fran Unsworth, BBC Director, News and Current Affairs and Gary Smith, former BBC Home Editor arrive at court for a previous hearing and they now plan to appeal

Although last week's ruling sparked jubiliation among Sir Cliff's supporters, it led to warnings from lawyers that it risked undermining journalists' ability to report police investigations.

The BBC claimed it represented a 'significant shift against Press freedom', while experts suggested that it could enable criminal suspects to block disclosure of their arrests.

After the ruling, jubilant fans gathered outside the courtroom and sang a version of Sir Cliff's hit 'Congratulations' as the emotional singer walked out.

The case centred on a BBC News report in August 2014, which named Sir Cliff as being under investigation for an allegation of a sex assault in the 1980s.

Journalist Dan Johnson (pictured) discovered the claim was being probed by South Yorkshire Police (SYP) and threatened to reveal the investigation unless he was given an exclusive tip-off

Journalist Dan Johnson discovered the claim was being probed by South Yorkshire Police (SYP) and threatened to reveal the investigation unless he was given an exclusive tip-off about the planned raid on the star's £3million home in Sunningdale, Berkshire.

BBC executives sanctioned the decision to name Sir Cliff, and to use a helicopter to capture aerial footage of the search, which was then broadcast as part of its news coverage.

In an emotional interview with ITV News last night, the star said the experience had been 'the most horrible, disastrous thing that's ever taken place in my life'.

He said he felt compelled to take legal action because the BBC had abused its position of trust and responsibility.

In an extraordinary attack on the broadcaster, the tearful star said: 'What the BBC did was an abuse... They took it upon themselves to be the judge, jury and executioner.'

Asked if executives should lose their jobs, he replied: 'They have to carry the can. I don't know how they're going to do it but they'll have to. If heads roll then maybe it's because it's deserved.'

He added: 'The BBC knew the police were not going to name me. 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.'

The star revealed he had spent £4million pursuing the broadcaster through the courts over its coverage of a police raid on his home, but insisted it was his 'greatest bit of charity work'.

He said he hoped the case would strike a blow for 'armies of innocent people'. On the issue of naming of criminal suspects, he said: 'I'd rather ten guilty people get away with it than one innocent person suffer.

Sir Cliff was visibly tearful after winning the case and was supported by best friend Gloria Hunniford throughout

Sir Cliff told how the stress of the experience had caused long-term health problems and said he feared his reputation had suffered a permanent 'tarnish' because of the worldwide publicity surrounding the allegation.

He has previously described how he collapsed when he first saw the television coverage and later feared the stress would trigger a heart attack or stroke.

He said he no longer blamed the police, as they had a duty to investigate serious allegations, but insisted the BBC must be held accountable.

The broadcaster's director of news Fran Unsworth defended its coverage as in the public interest as it involved a high-profile celebrity who had been accused of a sex assault on a child, in the wake of sex scandals including former BBC presenter Jimmy Savile.

She said: 'The judge has made clear that even if there had been no footage of the search and the story had less prominence, the very naming of Sir Cliff would have been unlawful.

'This creates a significant shift against Press freedom. This means police investigations and searches of people's homes could go unreported and unscrutinised.

'It will put decision making about naming individuals in the hands of the police over the public's right to know. We don't believe this is compatible with liberty and Press freedoms.'

High Court judge Mr Justice Mann ruled there had been no legal justification for its breach of Sir Cliff's privacy, saying: 'The BBC went in for an invasion of Sir Cliff's privacy rights in a big way.'

In a damning 120-page judgment he said public figures should not be considered 'fair game' and ruled the broadcaster's coverage did not serve the public interest, because the public already knew about several sex abuse allegations against celebrities.

The judge said: 'Knowing that Sir Cliff was under investigation might be of interest to the gossip-mongers, but it does not contribute materially to the genuine public interest in the existence of police investigations in this area.'

He said the report of the police investigation was accurate, but found that journalist Dan Johnson had effectively threatened police into cooperating with the BBC's coverage.

South Yorkshire Police has already apologised to Sir Cliff for its role and agreed to pay £400,000 in damages, and a further £300,000 in legal costs.

Mr Justice Mann said the BBC report had a 'profound' effect of Sir Cliff's dignity, status and reputation, and said the broadcaster would have to pay some of the police's damages to Sir Cliff.

He said there was a 'pressing social need' for journalists to report on the activities of the police, and said the damages awarded in the case should not have a 'chilling effect' on Press freedom.

But Ian Murray, of the Society of Editors, said it had 'worrying consequences' for freedom of expression and the public's right to know the actions of public authorities.

Lawyers warned journalists would 'walk on eggshells' when reporting police investigations in the future, and said the ruling could open the floodgates for more privacy claims.