IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST BETWEEN: PAUL GAMBACCINI Claimant -and- THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS: Defendant PARTICULARS OF CLAIM THE PARTIES 1. The Claimant was born on 2 April 1949. He is a well-known radio and television presenter and author. His career as a BBC radio DJ in the UK began in the 1970s and he continues to host shows on BBC Radio 2 and BBC Radio 4. At the time of his arrest by police officers he was living in South London and was aged 64. The Defendant is and was at all relevant times the Chief Officer of Police for the Metropolitan police area and of the Metropolitan Police Service (‘MPS’). The police officers referred to in these Particulars of Claim were at all relevant times acting under the direction and control of the Defendant in the performance or purported performance of their functions. The MPS is a public authority within the meaning of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and is required to act compatibly with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the ECHR’) RELEVANT BACKGROUND 5. Operation Yewtree was a high-profile police investigation led by the MPSOctober sexual abuse, including media personalities. Prior to the Claimant's arrest, others arrested as part of the operation included media personalities who had made their careers during the 1970s and 1980s including BBC radio producers and DJs. ‘The Defendant adopted and purported to implement a media strategy in relation to Operation Yewtree (‘the Media Strategy’) which included, inter alia, the following: (1) That the MPS was to be as open and transparent about the nature of the investigation as possible whilst protecting the confidentiality of suspects; and (2) When suspects were arrested or interviewed under caution limited information would be proactively published which would not include sufficient information to identify the suspect. On 29 October 2013, at approximately 4.38am police officers from Operation Yewtree attended the Claimant's home in South London and arrested him on suspicion of sexual offences in relation to two male minors. The Claimant was taken into police custody for questioning, The Claimant was released on bail at 5.56pm on 29 October 2013. He was bailed to return to Charing Cross police station on 8 January 2014 at 2.00pm. On 29 October 2013 at 13.32 the MPS Directorate of Media and Communications issued a Press Release (‘the First Press Release") which stated: “On 29 October 2013 a man {Yewtree 15 - 64 years} was arrested at an address in South London on suspicion of sexual offences and was taken into police custody”,10. On the same day at 18.09 the MPS) Communications issued a further Press R Release”) which stated: “Yewtree 15 - 64 yrs — had been arrested and released on bail with a return date at 12.00 on 08 January 2014”. 11. Following the issue of in the First Press Release and as was reasonably foreseeable, the Claimant was subsequently named in the media as a celebrity suspected of historic sexual abuse in connection with Operation Yewtree. The Sun website named the Claimant as the fifteenth person to be arrested in connection with Operation Yewtree during the afternoon of 1 November 2013. Thereafter the BBC published the story on its 6 o'clock news. The headline for the BBC article was “Paul Gambaccini arrested in Operation Yewtree inquiry’ 12. The Claimant was re-bailed on a number of occasions subsequently. With ‘one exception, on all these occasions, the MPS Directorate of Media and Communications published press releases referring to the re-bailing of “Yewtree 15” which was, as a result of the matters set out above, understood to be a reference to the Claimant. 13. On 10 October 2014 the Claimant was informed by the Crown Prosecution Service that there would be no further action in relation to the suspected offences for which he was arrested. IDENTIFICATION OF THE CLAIMANT BY THE DEFENDANT 14. Contrary to the Media Strategy, the First Press Release contained sufficient information to identify the Claimant to the media as the individual given the designation “Yewtree 15" who had been arrested as part of Operation Yewtree on suspicion of sexual offences. The Defendant provided further information in the Second Press Release, namely the fact that “Yewtree 15” had been released on bail, which had the effect of confirming the identity of the Claimant.15, In support of the contention in paragraph 1} following (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) 6) (7) personalities who had been working in television and radio in the 1970s, Prior to Claimant's arrest, several arrests had been made of celebrities in the music industry whose careers spanned the 1970s and 1980s, including BBC radio DJs and BBC radio producers. The Claimant is a high-profile media personality who was working in the television and radio industry in the 1970s and was a BBC radio DJ The Defendant was aware, at the time that the allegations were made against the Claimant, that there would be significant media speculation and interest in relation to his case and information in relation to it should be restricted. On 4 April 2013 Inspector R Hughes noted: “| have been made aware of this allegation and the high-profile nature of the accused. There will be significant media speculation and interest in this case and therefore, | have restricted the case to only OIC investigating officers and those who for operational reasons may need access to the CRIS.” As the Defendant was aware, at the time of the issue of the First Press Release, there was media speculation about the identities of the high-profile media personalities being investigated. It is reasonable to infer that the Claimant, due to his role in television and radio and his age, and that fact that he worked as a BBC radio Du in the 1970s and 1980s would be someone about whom there was such speculation In the circumstances as the Defendant was, or should have been aware, the provision of the Claimant's sex, age and home location in the First Press Release provided enough detail to enable the media to identify him. Further, the Second Press Release informed the media that the(8) (9) (10) determine whether the Claimant had been seen during this period, thus confirming the identification resulting from the First Press Release. The fact that the media often identify and name an arrested person without assistance from the police was well known of the Defendant. It was acknowledged in the College of Policing Guidance on Relationships with the Media, May 2013 (paragraph 3.5.1). This would be a particular risk in the case of celebrities and extra care would need to be taken by the police. This Guidance, which was in force at the relevant time, also stated that save in clearly identified circumstances, or where legal restrictions apply, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public (para 3.5.2) (emphasis added). Given the status of the Claimant as a well-known media personality, the interest of the media in Operation Yewtree and that other well-known suspects of sexual abuse had been previously named in the media, it was inevitable, or at the very least reasonably foreseeable, that once the media were aware of the identity of the Claimant as Yewtree 15, his name would be published in media articles and broadcasts as a suspect of historic sexual abuse. This conclusion was also reached by Sir Richard Henriques following his Independent Review of the Metropolitan Police Service's handling of non-recent sexual offence investigations alleged against persons of public prominence. At paragraph 1.52 of his Report he (rightly) stated: “In cases of non-prominent suspects, the publication that a fifty-year-old man in Brighton has been arrested for an indecent assault will deprive nobody of their anonymity. In the case, however, of a celebrity, and an16 loss of anonymity” (at paragraph 1.52). The media in fact identified the Claimant as “Yewtree 15” following the publication of the Press Releases. After the First Press Release the Claimant's husband received phone calls from Tom Morgan of The Sun and Danny Shaw of the BBC who stated that a 64-year old man had been arrested and they wanted to check if it was the Claimant. Other media organisations contacted the Claimant later that evening and the following day referring to a “rumour” going around the media that the Claimant was involved in the Yewtree arrests. By the morning of the 30 October 2013 there was a cordon of journalists, photographers and TV cameramen outside the Claimant's home. MISUSE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION 17. 18 The fact that the Claimant had been arrested as part of Operation Yewtree ‘on suspicion of sexual offences (‘the Information”) was information in relation to which the Claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy and which falls within the scope of the Claimant's rights protected under Article 8 ECHR. In support of the contention in paragraph 17 the Claimant will rely on the following: (1) The fact that the Media Strategy acknowledged the right of suspects not to be identified by the Defendant before charge. (2) The College of Policing Media Relations Guidance referred to in paragraph 15(8) above. (3) The revised College of Policing Guidance, issued in May 2017 and last modified on 18 January 2019, which includes the following: (a) “Respecting suspects’ rights to privacy. Suspects should not be identified to the media (by disclosing names or other identifying information) prior to the point of charge except19 20. (4) 6) (b) “Naming on arrest. Police will not name those arrested, or suspected of a crime, save in exceptional circumstances Where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so.....When someone is arrested, police can proactively release the person's gender, age, where they live (ie. the town or city), the nature, date and general location of the alleged offence, the date of the arrest, whether they are in custody or have been bailed, and the subsequent bail date, or if they were released without bail or with no further action being taken. This should not apply in cases where, although not directly naming an arrested person, this information would nevertheless have the effect of confirming their identity... This approach recognises that, in cases where the police name those who are arrested, there is a risk of unfair damage to the reputations of those persons, particularly if they are never charged.” The fact that there were no exceptional circumstances which would justify the Defendant naming the Claimant or providing identifying details of him as someone who had been arrested. The fact it was unnecessary to issue press releases in terms of the First and Second Press Releases to be open and transparent about the Operation Yewtree investigation and properly to inform the public. The Defendant could have simply reported that “a further individual had been arrested in Operation Yewtree” without providing any further details. The Defendant knew or ought to have known that the Information was Private and within the scope of the protection afforded by Article 8 ECHR. Further, and without prejudice to the burden of proof (which rests on the Defendant), there was no legitimate justification for the publication of theInformation. The Claimant will rely on, following: (1) The Defendant knew, or ought to have the Claimant as “Yewtree 15" to the media would result in widespread re-publication of the Information in the media, including online where it would appear against searches carried out on the Claimant's name. (2) The Defendant knew, or ought to have known, that publication of the Information would cause very serious damage, including reputational damage and financial loss, as well as distress to the Claimant. (3) _ The Defendant does not have rights under Article 10 ECHR to be balanced against the Claimants rights under Article 8 ECHR. 21. _ In disclosing the Information to the media by the publication of the Press Releases the Defendant has misused the Claimant's private information and/or breached his privacy. REMEDIES 22. By reason of the Defendant's misuse of the Claimant's private information and/or breaches of privacy, the Claimant has suffered (and continues to suffer) distress, anxiety and damage to his reputation 23. The Claimant will rely on the following in support of his claim for general damages, including aggravated damages, below. (1) The publication of the Information had a catastrophic effect on all aspects of the Claimant's life. He was extremely distressed and upset to be publicly suspected of sexual crimes and the implications this would have on his life (as set out below) (2) Although the allegations were false, some of the Claimant's friends, colleagues and contacts shunned him following the disclosure of the Information and his relationship with these people have not all been restored. These included several high-profile celebrities. (3) The Claimant was treated differently and/or personal relationships@) were ruptured following, and as a resulizefeifeztnerrmation being disclosed by the Defendant: (@) The Music and Industry Trusts Digiiy;-whichtWds an event that the Claimant had hosted every year since about 1997, did not invite him to host the event and ended relations with him: (6) The Labour Party, which the Claimant had supported and for which he had raised money for quarter of a century, withdrew its invitation for the Claimant to attend a fundraising dinner. (c) The BBC suspended the Claimant from work on Radio 2 and Radio 4 for the duration of his bail period. Following disclosure of the Information he was edited out of BBC4 and ITV programmes that had already been recorded (namely “The Nation's Favourite Elvis Songs” on ITV and “The Life of Rock with Brian Pern" on BBC Four) and an entire Radio 2 programme in which the Claimant had participated in a panel discussion of the 1960s hosted by Lord Grade and with fellow panellists including Dame Joan Bakewell, Petula Clark CBE, and Don Black OBE, was indefinitely postponed; the Claimant felt very badly about having wasted the time of these distinguished friends. (4) Stonewall, the LGBT Charity which the Claimant had supported and helped to arrange its initial funding in about 1989, refused to help the Claimant and his relationship with the charity ended. (e) Amnesty International, with whom the Claimant had had a ong relationship and whose name is on the foundation stone of the Amnesty Building, did not retum the Claimant's telephone calls and refused to support him. The Claimant's relationship with the charity has ended. As mentioned in paragraph 23(3)(c) above, the Claimant was suspended from his work at the BBC. Had his identity not been released, the Claimant would have been able to continue working notwithstanding the criminal investigation.(5) The nature of the allegations, whi Is sexual lity. (6) The wide-scale re-publication the Infoxationsiti the media has caused serious and substantial damage to the Claimant's reputation (7) The Claimant's husband received threatening text messages in February 2016 which referred to the Claimant as a ‘paedophile’ and an ‘abuser. The Claimant was very distressed that his husband was receiving death threats, and distressed to find that he was still being referred to in such terms when the police had confirmed that no further action was being taken against him. (8) The publication of further press releases throughout the Defendant's investigation into the Claimant referring to “Yewtree 15” aggravated the Claimant's distress, as his identity as “Yewtree 15" was known to the media and the public and such press releases necessarily resulted in further publicity naming him. AND the Claimant claims: (1) Damages including general and aggravated damages (2) Further or other relief. (3) Costs, including interest on costs. HUGH TOMLINSON Qc SARA MANSOORI STATEMENT OF TRUTH The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. Signed RO Quenbressan Date: 4 Nexteater, ZO 10