A High Court judge has dismissed a well-known man’s bid for an injunction to prevent two media organisations from reporting serious allegations against him.
Mr Justice Nicklin gave the judgment on Tuesday, rejecting the claim brought against Independent Television News (ITN), which produces news programmes for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, and Guardian News and Media, publisher of The Guardian.
The man, who is referred to in the proceedings as PPT, denies the allegations. He will remain anonymous to allow any appeal bids to be lodged.
In a summary of his ruling, the judge said: “The claimant’s claim for an injunction was dismissed. The court did not determine whether the allegations, or any of them, were true, and the dismissal of the claim does not amount to approval of any publication the defendants may decide to make.”
The ruling does not mean the allegations have been found to be true, and it does not require either organisation to publish anything. Whether ITN or the Guardian now choose to report the allegations is a decision for them, and any publication would be their responsibility.
During a two-day trial in late October, the High Court was told by lawyers for the media organisations that the allegations they want to report involve the man’s alleged “abuse of power and status” to contact young women and try to engage in “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities”. The man denies all of the allegations.
He had sought the injunction on the grounds that publication would put his life at risk, after two previous suicide attempts. His barrister, Sara Mansoori KC, told the court that publication “would have a potentially fatal impact”, and said her client had “no intention of returning to public life”.
Lawyers for ITN and the Guardian argued against the injunction. Gavin Millar KC, for the two organisations, said the case risked “dragging judges into assessing the causes of suicidal ideation, which are for professionals and not for a judge”, and added: “The obligation falls on the hospital to keep him safe, and that’s that.”
He also argued that the proposed publication “would make a valuable contribution to a debate of public importance, about men using their power to be able to misconduct themselves against women in that area of society”.
The case has been before the courts since last month, when the man first asked the High Court to permanently block the reporting. At a hearing in October, the court heard that journalists at both organisations had investigated his 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, and three women, known to the court as CA, CB and CC, have made allegations against him. He denies the allegations.
His legal team had argued that publication would breach his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life and the prohibition of degrading treatment, and had sought protection for him and his son under the right to private and family life. Medical evidence submitted to the court stated that publication would “almost certainly” lead to him attempting to take his own life.
The media organisations’ position was that the law already provides a detailed scheme by which the interests of people at risk are protected by NHS mental health professionals, and that the public interest in reporting serious allegations outweighed the claimant’s arguments.
What happens next depends on whether the man appeals. His anonymity continues for now, so he cannot yet be named, and any appeal would be heard in due course. If no appeal is lodged, the interim anonymity arrangements would fall away, and the two organisations would be free to decide whether to publish.
The judgment is a significant moment in the long-running tension between privacy and press freedom: the court has declined to restrain publication in advance, while making clear that it has not judged the truth of what may be reported. Readers should treat the allegations as unproven unless and until they are tested further, and the man’s denial stands on the record.
Samaritans can be contacted for free, day or night, on 116 123.
