A well-known man seeking an injunction against two media organisations faces allegations of “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities” with a large number of young women, the High Court has been told. The man, who cannot be identified, is bringing legal action against Independent Television News (ITN), which produces news programmes for ITV and Channel 4, and Guardian News and Media (GNM), publisher of The Guardian.
Allegations of abuse of power
On the first day of a trial on Tuesday, lawyers for the two media organisations told the court in London that 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 man is seeking an injunction to prevent this broadcast and publication. Mr Justice Nicklin will not determine the truth or accuracy of the allegations, only whether they can be published.
Judge urges public not to speculate
At the start of the hearing, the judge said he was aware of online speculation about the identity of the man, only known as PPT, and urged the public not to speculate while he determined the “difficult and important case”.
He said: “The existence of online speculation, however confidently expressed or widely repeated, does not authorise anyone to identify, or purport authoritatively to identify, PPT in connection with these proceedings. Nor does repetition transform speculation into established fact.”
Claimant’s denial and suicide attempts
Sara Mansoori KC, for the unnamed man, said that he denies the allegations of wrongdoing, and that publication “would have a potentially fatal impact”. She told the court: “The only reason they would not be fatal is because the claimant would be locked up and prevented from his desire to end his life.”
The barrister said that the man had made an initial suicide attempt upon receiving letters from ITN and GNM asking for his reply to the allegations. She said this response was not because of the allegations themselves, adding: “It is because of long-term trauma and the fear of trial by media.”
Ms Mansoori said the man had later absconded from hospital and attempted suicide for a second time. She added: “It is worth emphasising how extraordinary this position is. This is not a case where an individual has spuriously raised 'mental health' concerns in the face of an impending publication that they do not wish to occur.”
The claimant has attempted suicide twice as a result of these matters, been hospitalised for months, been the subject of involuntary detention and been examined by multiple - now more than 10 - doctors. Ms Mansoori also said the claimant “has no intention of returning to public life”.
Media organisations’ public interest argument
Gavin Millar KC, for ITN and GNM, said in written submissions that the allegations were gathered after “a wide-ranging and rigorous investigation” and that there was a “strong” public interest in publishing them. He said they intend to publish “numerous allegations” that the man had abused his status “over the course of many years” to try to engage in “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women”.
Mr Millar said reporters from the media organisations have spoken to more than 100 people, including friends and colleagues as well as women with allegations against him. The barrister said it was in the public interest to publish the allegations given their similarity from various sources who mostly did not know each other, which “indicated a pattern of behaviour”.
Mr Millar later said: “Many of the women who have reported these allegations have been traumatised by the claimant's alleged conduct and have suffered mental health crises and mental illness as a result.” He added that while the state may have a responsibility to protect life, applying that principle to this case would require the state to intervene in “lawful journalistic activities” of media organisations to prevent “an autonomous act by the claimant himself”.
The hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude on Wednesday with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
