A well-known public figure has asked London’s High Court to permanently block two media organisations from publishing serious allegations against him, including an allegation of a sexual offence.
The individual, who has been granted anonymity in the proceedings and is referred to only as PPT, is seeking an injunction against Independent Television News (ITN), which produces news programmes for ITV and Channel 4, and Guardian News & Media, publisher of The Guardian.
At a hearing on Friday, the court heard that journalists at both organisations had carried out an investigation into the individual’s conduct over a period of years, in what were described as a variety of professional and personal contexts. One woman claims she is the victim of a sexual offence. Three women, known to the court as CA, CB and CC, have made allegations against him.
The individual denies the allegations.
The argument for secrecy
Sara Mansoori KC, representing the claimant, told the court her client was “a well-known individual who suffers from very serious mental health problems”. She said he had attempted suicide twice in recent months, had been involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act during the summer, and remained seriously ill.
Medical evidence submitted to the court stated that publication of the allegations would “almost certainly” lead to him attempting to take his own life, and that the prospect of publication had already led to the two previous attempts.
The legal team argued that publication would breach the European Convention on Human Rights — specifically Article 2, the right to life, and Article 3, the prohibition of degrading treatment. They are also seeking protection for the claimant and his son under the right to private and family life.
“This is an exceptional and highly unusual case in all respects,” Mansoori told the court.
The argument for publication
Lawyers for ITN and Guardian News & Media opposed the injunction. They argued that “it would be wrong” for the court to restrain publication, saying the law already provides “a detailed and well-established scheme by which the interests of those at risk of suicide is specially protected by NHS mental health professionals”.
The media organisations’ position is, in essence, that the public interest in reporting serious allegations outweighs the claimant’s arguments — and that the risks he faces can be managed through the support systems that already exist, rather than through prior restraint on journalism.
Mr Justice Nicklin, who is hearing the case, said it was important for the proceedings to be as open as possible. “This case is going to be controversial either way it is decided,” he added.
What happens next
A trial is due to take place later this month, at which the court will decide whether to grant the permanent injunction — and, by extension, whether the allegations can be published.
The case sits at the intersection of two powerful principles: the right to free expression and the public’s right to know, set against the right to life and to private life. Courts have wrestled with this balance before, but cases in which a claimant argues that publication itself could be fatal are vanishingly rare.
For now, the anonymity order means the individual cannot be identified, and other individuals connected to the case have also been granted anonymity. Two people who have agreed to be identified in any eventual ITN or Guardian report were given anonymity in the current proceedings. The three women who made the allegations were ruled not to be named at this stage, as they had the potential to pursue criminal proceedings — in which they would be automatically entitled to anonymity.
If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article, the Samaritans can be contacted free on 116 123.
London Streets has been covering the Deepak Sandhu conviction and the Brixton Tube station arrests this week.
