Artist News Legal

Decision not to prosecute Cliff Richard was correct, rules CPS

By | Published on Wednesday 28 September 2016

Cliff Richard

The Crown Prosecution Service has upheld its decision not to prosecute Cliff Richard over allegations of sexual abuse. The initial outcome of the investigation into claims made against the singer – that there was insufficient evidence to proceed – was challenged by two of his accusers.

In a statement yesterday, the CPS said: “On 16 Jun, the CPS announced that no criminal charges were to be brought as a result of Operation Kaddie. The CPS subsequently received applications to review two of the charging decisions under the Victims’ Right To Review scheme. In accordance with the scheme, a CPS lawyer who was not involved in the original decision-making process has completed a full review of the evidence and has concluded that the decisions not to charge were correct”.

As previously reported, Richard’s Berkshire home was searched by police in 2014 in relation to accusations that he had sexually assaulted a boy under the age of sixteen at a Christian faith rally in the 1980s. Subsequently, three other men came forward, accusing the singer of offences dating back to 1958. He was questioned by police a number of times, but never arrested or charged.

In June this year, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that there was “insufficient evidence” to proceed further with a prosecution. However, in August this decision was challenged by one of his accusers, who was later joined by a second.

Next month, the singer plans to lobby Parliament in bid to get a change in the law whereby those accused of sexual abuse are not publicly named until after they are charged.

Richard will attend Parliament on 17 Oct to urge MPs and Lords to back proposals put forward by former police chief and now Liberal Democrat peer Brian Paddick, who is proposing that the identity of anyone accused of a sexual offence should remain confidential until the accused person is actually charged, except where a judge feels it is in the public interest for that person’s name to be published.