A celebrity has lost his High Court bid to block reporting of sex abuse allegations.
The well-known individual made the 'unprecedented' argument that he would kill himself if the allegations went public.
It's claimed the man, named only as PPT, 'abused his status' to conduct 'inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities' with 'a large number' of women and girls over a number of years.
The celebrity applied for an injunction against ITN and The Guardian newspaper, who said they had interviewed more than 100 people with knowledge of the celebrity's alleged misconduct.
Mr Justice Nicklin refused to grant the injunction but ordered that the celebrity should remain anonymous until a later date.
He said: 'I am dismissing the claimant's application and refusing the injunction. Let it be understood very clearly that nobody can identify [the celebrity], as it remains subject to a reporting restriction.
'The injunction would have been an exceptionally serious restriction upon freedom of expression. It would prevent the [media outlets] from publishing the results of investigations and prevent their sources from communicating their accounts.
'The restriction might also have continued for an uncertain and potentially indefinite amount of time.'
The celebrity wanted a High Court injunction to prevent media outlets from reporting allegations of sexual misconduct against him
He added that the claims against the celebrity 'serious' and 'capable of making a significant contribution to public debate.'
The celebrity's lawyer Sara Mansoori KC indicated he would appeal, adding: 'He is very vulnerable.'
Rather than claiming the stories would breach his right to privacy, as celebrities have done previously, the man claimed they would endanger his life and expose him to inhumane or degrading punishment under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Last week, Sara Mansoori KC, for PPT, told the court her client had already tried to kill himself twice since learning of the allegations, including while absconding from a secure hospital in July.
'The [media outlets] wish to publish allegations of wrongdoing which he denies and which the evidence is clear will highly likely lead to his death or psychological injury,' 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.
Source link
