Sir Cliff Richard struggled to sleep during a “torturous” four-year privacy battle against the BBC which cost him £4m, his friend Gloria Hunniford has told Sky News.
“It’s the first thing you think of in the morning and the last at night,” the presenter said.
“He’s been not sleeping. It’s been four years of torture, and £4m of his money in lawyers’ fees.”
After it was announced he had won the case, Sir Cliff “couldn’t speak really”, she said.
Hunniford had been expecting him to spring up in celebration, but he did not.
The 77-year-old star was, however, “really really emotional”.
“I came to the conclusion it was the relief after the trauma that he’s had for four years – just the relief of hearing the judge saying the words,” Hunniford reflected.
After speaking to Sir Cliff on Thursday night, Hunniford felt he was “beginning to let it (his victory) filter through”.
The singer won £210,000 in damages after suing the BBC over its coverage of a South Yorkshire Police raid on his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, in August 2014.
Newspapers have expressed concerns that the verdict could affect the freedom of the press to report police investigations.
That is because Mr Justice Mann said naming Sir Cliff as a suspect in a police inquiry amounted to a breach of his privacy.
News organisations may therefore be concerned about naming any suspect who has not been arrested or charged.
But Hunniford rejected that suggestion.
“Cliff did not attack through this case freedom of the press – that was never in the mix,” she said.
“It was the invasion and the violation of privacy.”
Sir Cliff also had other people in mind, she said.
“During his court case, he was very aware that he wasn’t doing it just for himself, he was doing it for everybody.
“There are a lot of very innocent people who haven’t got a name to put out there, they haven’t got the money to put out there, and so it’s for everybody really.”
She supports the idea that “suspects are not named until police have done a proper investigation and come to the conclusion that there is a charge to be made”.
“Then when the charge is made, it doesn’t stop the journalists from investigating whatever they want.
“I also think that the person who makes that allegation should be named as well,” she added.
At the moment, she said, someone who makes a wrong allegation can escape scrutiny.
“The person who made that false allegation – nothing happens to that person – they sit in their armchair looking at the telly, and yet the person who’s innocent goes through torture.”
Sir Cliff had been concerned about the potential lasting effect of the broadcast, Hunniford said, adding: “You go into the computer and there it is – first thing.
“What he was really concerned about was that in that action of putting the camera through his window and the sensational way they (the BBC) did it, that that went worldwide, and (the) message of being exonerated doesn’t get that far sometimes.”