A well-known man has lost his High Court bid for an injunction to stop two media organisations from publishing allegations against him, but he cannot yet be named because he has been granted permission to appeal.
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.
Lawyers for the media organisations previously told the High 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”.
Injunction Dismissed on Freedom of Expression Grounds
The man, who denies the claims, sought the injunction because of a risk that he would take his own life, after two previous suicide attempts.
In a judgment on Tuesday, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the injunction bid, ruling it would be an “exceptionally serious interference” with freedom of expression. The judge did not determine whether any of the allegations ITN and GNM plan to publish are true.
Mr Justice Nicklin said the man has repeatedly stated 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”.
Judge’s Reasoning on Risk and Safety
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. He continued: “The evidence does not identify a point at which publication would become safe merely through the passage of time.”
The judge said hospitals and health staff caring for the man meant that the state had “assumed responsibility” for his immediate safety and “can provide significant protection” which “materially reduces the likelihood of suicide”.
Appeal Permission Granted
Sara Mansoori KC, for the man, 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 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.”
Samaritans can be contacted for free, day or night, 365 days a year, on 116 123, or visit samaritans.org to find your nearest branch.
