A celebrity has failed in a High Court attempt to prevent the publication of allegations of sexual abuse.
The prominent figure made what was described as an “unprecedented” argument, claiming he would take his own life if the allegations were reported.
The man, identified only as PPT, is accused of abusing his position to engage in “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities” with “a large number” of women and girls over several years.
PPT sought an injunction against ITN and The Guardian, which told the court they had spoken to more than 100 people familiar with the celebrity’s alleged conduct.
Mr Justice Nicklin rejected the application for an injunction but ruled that PPT must remain anonymous for the time being.
He said: “I am dismissing the claimant’s application and refusing the injunction. It must be understood very clearly that nobody may identify [the celebrity], as the reporting restriction remains in force.
“[The celebrity] has repeatedly stated that he intends to take his own life if publication goes ahead. Those statements must be treated seriously, particularly in light of his previous behaviour. They do not, however, prove that suicide is inevitable or that treatment could not reduce the danger.
“The injunction sought would have imposed an exceptionally serious restriction on freedom of expression. It would stop [the media outlets] publishing the findings of their investigations and prevent their sources from sharing their accounts.
“The restriction could also have remained in place for an uncertain, and potentially indefinite, period.”
The celebrity sought a High Court injunction to stop media organisations reporting allegations of sexual misconduct against him
The judge accepted that the risk of suicide was “genuine, grave and closely connected to the court’s decision”.
“I accept that publication would cause the claimant acute and potentially prolonged mental suffering. His vulnerability and the probable psychiatric consequences are matters of profound seriousness,” he said.
However, Mr Justice Nicklin said NHS psychiatric services were sufficient to meet the state’s duty to protect the celebrity’s life. That duty did not extend to suppressing media coverage.
“I have concluded that the court is neither legally required nor empowered to restrain the [media outlets’] publications,” he said.
He said the allegations against the celebrity were “serious” and could make a significant contribution to public debate, while stressing that his ruling did not decide whether the claims were true.
Sara Mansoori KC, representing the celebrity, indicated that he could appeal. She told the court he was “very vulnerable” and had “not been in a position to give us instructions”.
Mr Justice Nicklin gave PPT until November 9 to lodge an appeal. He said the case raised important questions about the courts’ responsibilities to prevent people taking their own lives under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Unlike previous cases in which public figures argued that publication would violate their privacy, PPT claimed that reporting the allegations would put his life at risk and expose him to inhumane or degrading treatment under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
Last week, Ms Mansoori told the court that her client had made two suicide attempts since learning of the allegations, including one after he absconded from a secure clinic in July. She said he is now receiving treatment in hospital.
RELATED: Norway Mocks Trump Over His Vulgar Criticism of the Country
“The [media outlets] want to publish allegations of wrongdoing which he denies and which, the evidence clearly shows, are highly likely to result in his death or psychological injury,” she said.
“They argue that publication is required because it is substantially in the public interest, but that assessment is wrong. A newspaper does not have the right to publish information at the cost of an individual being killed or seriously harmed.
“The only way [publication] would not be fatal is if the claimant were confined and prevented from taking his own life.”
Ms Mansoori accused the media organisations of being determined to publish the reports “regardless of whether he dies or spends months in psychiatric detention”.
The court heard that PPT’s “body language completely changed” when he was informed of the allegations in May, and that he entered a state of “extreme panic”.
“He began saying that he wanted to kill himself and would try to do so,” Ms Mansoori said. “Publication of these allegations would lead to a very substantial increase in suicidal thoughts and acts on the claimant’s part.
“He attempted suicide in May, when he was first told of the defendants’ intention to publish, and again in July, when he absconded from a secure hospital to do so.”
Gavin Millar KC, acting for the media organisations, described PPT’s case as “unprecedented”. He said it risked drawing the courts into “assessing the causes of suicidal ideation, which are matters for professionals and not a judge”.
“His position is that, if the allegations are published, he will take his own life, and that the state’s duty requires this court to prevent [the media] from publishing them,” he said.
“If the state owes a duty to PPT, that duty is fulfilled through NHS mental health services and medical professionals. The responsibility lies with the hospital to keep him safe, and that is the end of the matter.
“There is a powerful public interest in reporting allegations that are credible and which [the outlets] believe to be true.”
He said the journalists’ investigation indicated that the celebrity had “abused his power… to prey on young women for sexual purposes over an extended period”.
“[Publication] would make an important contribution to a debate of public significance about men using positions of power to misconduct themselves towards women,” he said.
“Some of the allegations are serious enough to warrant a criminal investigation. Young women could remain at risk while this information is not reported.
“Several of [the journalists’] sources were traumatised by the way they were treated by [the celebrity], suffering serious mental health crises and other mental illness as a consequence.”
Last week, Mr Justice Nicklin warned that granting the injunction sought by PPT could create a precedent with “almost no limit”.
He said it might require courts to stop prosecutors charging suicidal people with offences, or prevent children being placed in care when abusive parents threatened to take their own lives.
A psychiatrist who assessed PPT said his mood disorder was treatable and that it would be “significantly safer” for him to remain in a secure hospital if the allegations were published.
Following the hearing, criminal defence solicitor Marcus Johnstone, who specialises in representing people accused of sexual offences, said: “While I am extremely sympathetic to people whose lives are devastated by unproven allegations, a different ruling in this case could have created a dangerous precedent.”
