Child sex offenders & criminals have been given a right to secrecy by unelected judges – government must reverse this

ON the face of it, what could be fairer than a suspect remaining anonymous until police have ­mustered the proof needed to put them in the dock?

Why, for instance, should innocent superstar Cliff Richard be hounded without evidence by police while the eyes of the world are watching live from BBC helicopters?

The case seems reasonable — until you realise how much of the most crucial evidence would never see the light of day but for the freedom of the Press to publish.

Or how the rich, powerful — and guilty — will now use their muscle to suppress this evidence, cover their tracks and gag witnesses.

Or the scale of the freedom it hands to the often bungling Plod to operate without scrutiny.

This week the dodgiest in society were handed a lethal new weapon, labelled a “right to privacy”, via a Supreme Court judgment — without a vote from the MPs we elect to approve key legislation.

In fact this is a “right to secrecy” — a cloak for clandestine terrorists, child sex criminals and villains of all types to keep the probing light of Press exposure at bay.

Until this week, suspects could be investigated by newspapers, under the provisions of media freedom, while police inquiries were ongoing.

Now they must wait until the suspect has been charged.

Unelected judges have thereby put the right of criminals to privacy above the pursuit of criminal justice.

A free Press, along with free speech, lies at the heart of our centuries-old democracy.

Without one you cannot have the other.

History shows police are not always reliable guardians of law and order.

Frequently, it takes a newspaper story to expose criminals, encourage victims to come forward — and force police into action.

Sources often trust newspapers to publish the truth more than they do the police to do their job.

In 2014, the BBC was forced to pay Sir Cliff Richard £210,000 damages and around £2million in legal fees for filming an unjustified police raid on his home.

The controversial footage raised alarm over police tactics and their links with the broadcaster.

But it also cast a deep shadow over legitimate newspaper investigations.

CAST DEEP SHADOW

Without intrepid journalism, we may never have seen monsters like Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall brought to justice, nor the extent of Jimmy Savile’s crimes exposed after his death.

Nor the sex gangs of mostly Pakistani origin who preyed on young white girls in the Midlands and the North and were ignored by police.

Or a host of other high crimes and misdemeanours, including the abuse of hospital patients by NHS staff, where newspapers had been alerted by whistle-blowers.

In each case, it was through Press coverage that witnesses and victims realised an investigation was under way and were encouraged to come forward with evidence.

Indeed, without those newspaper stories, they might never have even known about the investigation at all.

Now, thanks to an obscure case involving a financial executive versus Bloomberg News, this crucial route to justice can be severed at the drop of a richly paid barrister’s writ.

The Supreme Court says: “Judges have voiced concerns as to the negative effect on an innocent person’s reputation of the publication that he or she is being investigated by the police or an organ of the state.”

Yet this decision by the highest court in the land will be deployed not by run-of- the-mill criminals but by the wealthy, powerful and most sinister.

‘A REAL RISK’

People smugglers, money launderers and child sex traffickers can trade on an EU-based “right to a private life” to stymie probes which are in the public interest.

John Micklethwait, of Bloomberg News, says the decision will “frighten every decent journalist in Britain”.

He adds: “The courts have now presented the powerful with a path to keep their names out of print for years.

“And it really is only for them.  Somewhere Robert Maxwell is smiling.”

Daily Mirror pensions thief Maxwell drowned off his boat, named after his now notorious daughter Ghislaine, having used such legal blocking tactics to thwart fraud probes.

Dawn Alford, of the Society of Editors said: “The ruling will have far-reaching implications for the British media.

“There is a real risk the bar is now so high for privacy cases that legitimate public interest journalism will go unreported.

“It is well-documented that identifying suspects can lead to other complainants coming forward alongside witnesses for any future prosecution or defence.

“In addition, it is vitally important that the actions of the police remain open to scrutiny.”

It will be instructive to see if this Government acts swiftly and decisively to reverse this travesty of justice.

Or leaves it on the statute book in case it becomes useful to them at some point in future.