Getty Images
A celebrity who asked the High Court to permanently prevent two news organisations from publishing his identity and allegations of sexual misconduct has lost his case, with the court saying the man’s claim for an injunction was denied.
But the judge Mr Justice Nicklin said a temporary injunction preventing the man from being named and the allegations published should remain in place, in order to allow the celebrity to appeal against the judgment, with anonymity and reporting restrictions remaining in force during the period allowed for any appeal.
ITN and the Guardian have said they believe it is in the public interest to publish allegations that the man abused his status to attempt or attempt to engage in “inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women”.
The man, who denies the allegations, said any publication would be “highly likely” to lead him to kill himself, and that the court should prevent any publication or broadcast.
In a judgment on Tuesday, Nicklin rejected the injunction request and said in a summary of his ruling: “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.”
He added that the man will remain anonymous to allow any appeal to be lodged.
During a two-day trial last week, the court heard that the man denies abusing “his power and position as a celebrity to contact and forge relationships with young women and teenagers to try to have sex with them”.
The celebrity’s lawyers told the court that his high suicide risk was not because of any wrongdoing, but because of the fear of “trial by media”.
Sara Mansoori KC, representing the man, told the court that any publication “would have a potentially fatal impact”.
The barrister told the court: “The only reason they would not be fatal is because the claimant would be locked up and prevented from his desire to end his life.”
She said the man had made a suicide attempt after receiving letters from ITN and Guardian News and Media (GNM) asking for his response to the allegations, and later absconded from hospital and attempted suicide for a second time.
She added in written submissions: “This is not a case where an individual has spuriously raised ‘mental health’ concerns in the face of an impending publication that they do not wish to occur.
“The claimant has attempted suicide twice as a result of these matters, been hospitalised for months, been the subject of involuntary detention and been examined by multiple – now more than 10 – doctors.”
Mansoori also said the man “has no intention of returning to public life”.
Gavin Millar KC, for ITN and GNM, said in written submissions that “numerous allegations” had been gathered during “a wide-ranging and rigorous investigation” and that there was a “strong” public interest in publishing them.
He said reporters had spoken to more than 100 people, and that the resulting allegations “indicated a pattern of behaviour”.
Millar later said many of the women “have been traumatised by the claimant’s alleged conduct and have suffered mental health crises and mental illness as a result”.
He argued that while the state may have a responsibility to protect life, applying that principle to this case would require the state to intervene in “lawful journalistic activities” to prevent “an autonomous act by the claimant himself”.
A medical report carried out for the court said inpatient treatment could provide “significant, but not complete mitigation of the risk”, but that treatment, perhaps for months, had “a realistic potential to reduce the risk”.
TheBBC Action Linewebsite has information about organisations that can offer support for the issues raised in this story.
