The BBC has suspended one of its presenters following an allegation he paid a teenager tens of thousands of pounds for sexually explicit images.
The presenter has not been named as broadcasters and newspapers continue to weigh up the concerns of defamation and privacy, according to legal experts, after fresh claims were made by BBC News and The Sun.
Below is a summary of the key issues:
What are the privacy rules?
On Wednesday, media lawyer Paul Gilbert told Nicky Campbell’s 5 Live Breakfast show that privacy law had been “beefed up” over the years as the courts are concerned about the “adverse impact on the person”.
“This is an issue for an employer into alleged behaviour of its employee, a matter that is being investigated,” he added.
“There is no reason why the identity of this person should be revealed.”
Under article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), everyone has the right to privacy including in their family life, their home and their correspondence.
Mark Stephens, media law expert and partner at Howard Kennedy, cited Sir Cliff Richard winning a privacy case against the BBC over its coverage of a 2014 South Yorkshire Police raid on his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, after he was falsely accused of historical sex offences.
He added: “That is why the Sun and no other newspaper has identified the presenter, and part of that was to avoid this social media frenzy with names being bandied about.”
The BBC presenter is not being investigated by the police, the Metropolitan Police said.
On Tuesday, the force said it continues to make an “assessment to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed”.
What are the defamation concerns?
Media law consultant Charlie Moloney said another aspect publishers will be considering when deciding whether to identify the star is defamation.
He said: “Clearly, this is the kind of allegation that would lower him in the eyes of right-thinking members of society and if you identify him, and you publish that, and he proves that that causes serious harm to his reputation – which I’m sure that we probably all agree that it would – then he could sue you for defamation.
“The only real defences here, firstly would be that it’s true, but the publisher who named him would have to prove that it’s true.
“They would have the burden of proof, which is not an easy thing to do… but of course, maybe they do have some evidence we don’t know about, but even pictures and things like that don’t necessarily prove everything.
“The other thing they could argue it’s in the public interest to report the allegations, but they would have to show that they’ve taken every possible step to verify everything and show that they reasonably believed what they were doing is in the public interest.”
The Defamation Act 2013 explanatory notes state public interest has not been defined in the act but the concept has been “well-established in the English common law”.
Mr Moloney said it is not “free of risk” to publish the identity of the presenter and it is still a “huge story” without identifying him.
On Saturday’s front page The Sun printed the first allegation which said the person paid a teenager around £35,000 for explicit images.
However, the young person at the centre of the controversy later said via lawyers, in a letter to the BBC, that nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened with the unnamed presenter.
Their mother, who made the initial allegations, told The Sun they stand by the claims and a spokesperson for the newspaper said it is “now for the BBC to properly investigate”.
What is the public interest and media regulation?
Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) has an Editors’ Code of Practice which sets out rules for newspapers and magazines that have signed up to it.
These includes clause two, privacy, which the code says means a respect for everyone’s private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence including digital communications.
However Ipso says the public interest is an “exception” to privacy.
Public interest for the press regulator includes detecting or exposing serious impropriety, disclosing a miscarriage of justice and raising or contributing to a matter of public debate.
The Sun reported a 23-year-old person, separate to their previous reports, has claimed the BBC presenter broke lockdown rules to meet them during the pandemic in February 2021.
On 5 Live Breakfast show, Campbell also asked Mr Gilbert if the allegation means the BBC presenter can be named.
Mr Gilbert said if the story had started with a presenter allegedly “breaching lockdown” than that could justify him being named.
However, he said, with other claims being made, for “legal reasons” the man cannot be named.
The Sun also reported an additional claim from a 17-year-old who said the presenter contacted them “out of the blue” on Instagram.
BBC News also reported a young person in their 20s, who met the presenter on a dating app, was sent threatening messages by the unnamed man after hinting online that they would reveal his identity.
Media watchdog Ofcom, which regulates broadcasters, also has a broadcasting code.
This states programmes should avoid “unwarranted infringement of privacy” and “avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations”.
Can parliamentary privilege be used?
There have been reports in newspapers that some MPs are threatening to use parliamentary privilege to unveil the presenter.
A House of Commons spokesperson said: “Privilege should always be used carefully, recognising that Members do have the right to free speech in the Chamber.”
At the beginning of each parliament, the Speaker tells MPs that the House “asserts its privilege of freedom of speech” and that they are obliged to “exercise that privilege responsibly”.
In 2011, Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming revealed that banker Fred Goodwin had secured an injunction protecting his identity.
The same year, Mr Hemming also told parliament that footballer Ryan Giggs had obtained an injunction to prevent reporting of an allegation about his private life.
What has the BBC said?
Director-general Tim Davie has said the BBC as the employer in this case also has a “duty of care”.
He told the BBC annual report on Tuesday: “This is clearly a complex and difficult situation where we need to manage a number of factors – properly responding to serious allegations, sensitively managing duty of care issues, appropriately respecting the privacy of individuals and justified public interest.
“We do believe we are navigating these responsibly and judicially but we recognise it’s not easy to do so.”
