A celebrity has failed in a High Court attempt to prevent the publication of allegations involving sexual abuse.
In an unusual legal argument, the high-profile figure claimed he would take his own life if the allegations were made public.
The man, identified in court as PPT, is accused of abusing his position to engage in “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities” involving “a large number” of women and girls over several years.
PPT sought an injunction against ITN and The Guardian, which told the court that their investigations had included interviews with more than 100 people familiar with the alleged misconduct.
Mr Justice Nicklin rejected the application, although he ordered that the celebrity’s identity must remain protected for the time being.
The judge said: “I am dismissing the claimant’s application and refusing the injunction. It must be made absolutely clear that nobody may identify [the celebrity], because the reporting restriction remains in force.
“[The celebrity] has repeatedly stated that he plans to take his own life if the allegations are published. Those warnings must be treated seriously, especially in light of his past conduct. However, they do not prove that suicide is unavoidable or that medical treatment could not lower the risk.
“Granting the injunction would impose an exceptionally serious limit on freedom of expression. It would stop [the media outlets] from reporting the findings of their investigations and prevent sources from sharing their accounts.
“That restriction could also remain in place for an uncertain period, potentially indefinitely.”
The celebrity asked the High Court to stop media organisations from publishing allegations of sexual misconduct against him
Mr Justice Nicklin acknowledged that the danger of the celebrity taking his own life was “genuine, grave and closely connected to the court’s decision”.
“I accept that publication would cause the claimant acute and potentially lasting psychological distress. His vulnerability and the probable psychiatric impact are matters of profound seriousness,” he said.
But the judge concluded that NHS psychiatric care was sufficient to meet the state’s duty to protect the celebrity’s life. That duty, he said, did not extend to preventing news organisations from publishing reports.
“I have concluded that the court is neither legally obliged nor entitled to restrain the [media outlets’] publications,” he said.
He added that the accusations against the star were “serious” and could make an important contribution to public discussion, while stressing that his ruling did not decide whether the allegations were true.
The celebrity’s barrister, Sara Mansoori KC, suggested that he could appeal. She told the court that he was “very vulnerable” and had been “not in a position to give us instructions”.
Mr Justice Nicklin gave the celebrity until November 9 to submit an appeal. He said the case raised significant questions about the courts’ responsibilities when a person says they may take their own life, particularly under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Unlike earlier privacy cases involving public figures, the man argued that publication would threaten his life and subject him to inhumane or degrading treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
Ms Mansoori told the court last week that her client had made two suicide attempts since discovering the allegations. One was said to have occurred in July, when he left a secure clinic without permission. She said he is now receiving hospital care.
KEEP READING: Aviation Expert Reveals Critical Mistake Learjet Pilots Made Before Fatal Florida Crash
“The [media outlets] intend to publish allegations of wrongdoing that he denies, despite clear evidence that doing so is highly likely to result in his death or serious psychological harm,” she said.
‘They say they have a duty to publish because it’s substantially in the public interest, but their assessment of the public interest is wrong. A newspaper does not have the right publish information at the cost of an individual being killed or maimed.
‘They only way [publication] wouldn’t be fatal is if the claimant is locked up and prevented from taking his own life.’
Ms Mansoori accused the media outlets of being determined to publish the stories ‘regardless of whether he dies or spends months in psychiatric detainment’.
The court heard that when PPT was told about the allegations in May, his ‘body language completely changed’ and he went into a state of ‘extreme panic’.
‘He started saying that he wanted to kill himself and would seek to do so,’ said Ms Mansoori. ‘Publication of these allegations would lead to a very substantial increase in suicidal ideation and suicidal acts on the part of the claimant.
‘He attempted suicide in May when he was first notified of the defendants’ intention to publish, and again in July, on that occasion absconding from secure hospital to do so.’
Gavin Millar KC, for the media outlets, described PPT’s argument as ‘unprecedented’ and risked dragging the courts into ‘assessing the causes of suicidal ideation, which are for professionals and not for a judge’.
‘His contention is that if the allegations are published he will commit suicide, and the state’s duty requires this court to restrain [the media] from publishing them,’ he said.
‘If the state owes a duty to PPT, it is discharged by NHS mental health services and practitioners. The obligation falls on the hospital to keep him safe, and that’s that.
‘There is a strong public interest in publishing these allegations which are credible and which [the outlets] believe to be true.’
He added the journalists’ research suggested the celebrity had ‘abused his power…to prey on young women for sexual purposes over an extended period’.
‘[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,’ he said.
‘Some of the allegations are sufficiently serious to justify a criminal investigation. Young women may remain at risk while this information remains unreported.
‘Several of [the journalists’] sources were traumatised by how they were treated by [the celebrity], having suffered serious mental health crises and other mental illness as a result.’
Last week, Mr Justice Nicklin said the injunction PPT wanted could set a precedent ‘almost without limit’.
He suggested that it could oblige courts to block prosecutors from charging suicidal individuals with crimes, or prevent children from being taken into care if abusive parents threaten to kill themselves.
A psychiatrist who assessed PPT said his mood disorder was treatable and it would be ‘significantly safer’ for him to remain in a secure hospital if the allegations were published.
After the hearing, criminal defence solicitor Marcus Johnstone, who specialises in representing people accused of sex crimes, said: ‘While I am extremely sympathetic to those whose lives are severely damaged by unproven claims, a different decision in this case would have risked setting a dangerous precedent.’