Court Refuses Permanent Injunction Against Media Over Celebrity Allegations; Anonymity Stays Pending Appeal

On Tuesday, a judge at the High Court in London refused to permanently bar two news organisations from identifying a celebrity and publishing allegations of sexual misconduct against him. The man, who cannot be named, had argued that publication would be "highly likely" to lead him to kill himself. Mr Justice Nicklin rejected the claim for an injunction, but left the anonymity order in place for now.

The two defendants are ITN and the Guardian. They say their investigation found that the man abused his power and status to engage, or try to engage, in what they describe as "inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women". The man denies the allegations. The judge was explicit that he had not decided whether any of them are true, and that dismissing the claim "does not amount to approval of any publication the defendants may decide to make".

The case began in the summer, after journalists contacted the man with their allegations. He went to court to stop the investigation from appearing. At last week's hearing on a permanent injunction, his barrister, Sara Mansoori KC, said publication would have a "potentially fatal impact". She told the court that he had tried to take his own life after the media organisations contacted him, was detained in hospital for his own protection, then absconded and made a second attempt. She argued those incidents stemmed not from the allegations themselves but from "long-term trauma and the fear of trial by media". Any attempt after publication would fail to be fatal, she said, only because he would be locked up and prevented from acting on his wishes.

The man also relied on the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life, protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, and respect for private and family life. The media groups countered that the seriousness of the allegations gave their reporting a strong public interest.

Nicklin took the suicide risk seriously. He noted that the man has repeatedly said he would end his life if the allegations were published. But he said those statements do not "establish that suicide is inevitable or that treatment cannot reduce the risk". On the right to life, he found that no earlier case establishes that a court's awareness of a suicide risk, plus its power to prohibit the event expected to raise that risk, is by itself enough to require it to act. He accepted that publication would cause the man "acute and potentially prolonged mental suffering", but said established law imposed no positive obligation on the court to prevent that by restraining publication.

On private and family life, the judge went further in acknowledging the harm, saying publication "would interfere exceptionally seriously" with it. But a permanent injunction, he wrote, "would have been an exceptionally serious restriction upon freedom of expression". He described the proposed stories as concerning serious allegations about a prominent person's alleged use of status, influence and access in dealings with women and girls, matters "capable of making a significant contribution to public debate".

For now, nothing can be published. Mansoori asked for time to consider an appeal, saying her client is "in a highly vulnerable position" and has not been able to give instructions. The strict anonymity order stays in force through the appeal period, and it remains unlawful to identify the man or publish details that might do so. The claimant must lodge his reasons for appeal to the Court of Appeal by 16:30 GMT on 9 November. If he does not, the restrictions' future will be the next question; if he does, the case will test an unusual legal question: whether a court must halt a media investigation because the subject says it will lead him to harm himself.