A High Court trial opened on Tuesday to test whether the judicial machinery can resolve a single question: may two news organisations name a well-known figure accused of abusing his status over many years to engage, or attempt to engage, in “inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women”. The case is not, at this stage, about whether the allegations are true. It is about whether the process itself, from evidence to legal submissions, can settle the question of publication.
The man, referred to in court only as PPT, is seeking an injunction to block the release of both his identity and the allegations. His legal team told the first day of the trial that any publication would be “highly likely” to lead him to kill himself. That reaction, they argued, would stem not from any wrongdoing on his part but from fear of “trial by media”. The man denies abusing “his power and position as a celebrity to contact and forge relationships with young women and teenagers to try to have sex with them”, the court heard.
For the news organisations, ITN and Guardian News and Media (GNM), the argument was that the judicial process had already done its work where it mattered. Their counsel, Gavin Millar KC, said the “suicide risk” could be mitigated and that there was no proper basis “to restrain the publication of public interest journalism”. In written submissions, he said “numerous allegations” had been gathered during “a wide-ranging and rigorous investigation”, with reporters speaking to more than 100 people and the resulting allegations indicating “a pattern of behaviour”.
What the court actually has before it was laid bare in a medical report prepared for the proceedings. It found that inpatient treatment could offer “significant, but not complete mitigation of the risk”, and that such treatment, potentially lasting months, had “a realistic potential to reduce the risk”. Sara Mansoori KC, representing the man, told the court that publication “would have a potentially fatal impact”, adding that the only reason any outcome would not be fatal was that “the claimant would be locked up and prevented from his desire to end his life”.
Mansoori set out the record of what had already happened on the ground since the allegations were put to him. The man attempted suicide after receiving letters from ITN and GNM asking for his response, then absconded from hospital and attempted suicide a second time. In written submissions she said: “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.” She noted that the claimant had attempted suicide twice, been hospitalised for months, been subject to involuntary detention, and been examined by more than 10 doctors. She also told the court he “has no intention of returning to public life”.
Millar, for the publishers, acknowledged the state may carry a responsibility to protect life, but argued that applying that principle here would require intervention in “lawful journalistic activities” to prevent “an autonomous act by the claimant himself”. He added that many of the women involved “have been traumatised by the claimant’s alleged conduct and have suffered mental health crises and mental illness as a result”.
Mr Justice Nicklin, the judge overseeing the proceedings, said there was “significant public interest” in the case and described it as “difficult and important”. He stressed that “the court must determine it fairly, on the evidence and legal submissions”. His role is confined to whether the allegations can be published, not whether they are accurate.
Nicklin also urged the press and public not to speculate about the man’s identity. “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,” he said. “Nor does repetition transform speculation into established fact.”
Further background on the proceedings is available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6j47z0g4nwpo. The BBC Action Line website has information about organisations that can offer support for the issues raised in this story.