A male celebrity has lost his bid for an injunction against two media organisations to prevent the publication of allegations against him including sexual misconduct. The man brought legal action against Independent Television News (ITN), which produces news programmes for ITV, Channel 4, Good Morning Britain and Channel 5, and Guardian News and Media (GNM), publisher of The Guardian.
Allegations of abuse of power
Lawyers for the media organisations previously told the High Court in London the allegations they want to report involve the man’s alleged “abuse of power and status” to contact young women and try to engage in “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities”. The well-known man, who denies the claims, sought an injunction to prevent this broadcast and publication because of a risk that he would take his own life, after two previous suicide attempts.
But in a judgment on Tuesday, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the injunction bid, ruling it would be an “exceptionally serious interference” with freedom of expression. However, the famous man still cannot yet be named as he can take his case to the Court of Appeal. The judge did not determine whether any of the allegations ITN and GNM plan to publish, which also includes “potential criminal activity”, are true.
Court considers suicide risk
Mr Justice Nicklin continued that the man has repeatedly said he intends to take his own life if the allegations are published, and that this must be taken seriously. However, he added that these statements do not “establish that suicide is inevitable”. Mr Justice Nicklin said: “His prediction of his own future conduct is made in the context of depressive illness, hopelessness and catastrophic thinking. It is powerful evidence of the seriousness of the present risk, particularly when considered with his previous conduct, but it is not a reliable basis for concluding that no future treatment or intervention could alter that risk.”
In the 52-page judgment he also said that granting the injunction would not treat the man’s psychiatric condition or eliminate his elevated risk. The judge continued: “The evidence does not identify a point at which publication would become safe merely through the passage of time. The relief sought would therefore be of uncertain and potentially indefinite duration.” He continued that hospitals and health staff caring for the individual, who is detained under the Mental Health Act, meant that the state had “assumed responsibility” for the man’s immediate safety and “can provide significant protection”, which “materially reduces the likelihood of suicide”.
Appeal and next steps
Sara Mansoori KC, for the figure, asked Mr Justice Nicklin to allow the case to be considered by the Court of Appeal, also telling the court that her client is “in a highly vulnerable position”. The judge granted permission, and said that any notice of appeal or requests for further time, would need to be provided to the Court of Appeal by Monday afternoon. Mr Justice Nicklin also said that it would not be up to a court to name the man in the case. He said: “The court does not itself put into the public domain the material which the claimant sought to restrain. It remains the choice of the defendants what, when and how they publish. The court does nothing to pre-empt that decision, which will be for the defendants and the defendants alone when any legal impediment to publication is removed.”
Ms Mansoori previously said the man denies the allegations of wrongdoing and that publication “would have a potentially fatal impact”, and that he has “no intention of returning to public life”. Gavin Millar KC, for ITN and GNM, said the case risks “dragging judges into assessing the causes of suicidal ideation, which are for professionals and not for a judge”. He added: “The obligation falls on the hospital to keep him safe, and that’s that.”
