A well-known man has lost his High Court attempt to stop two news organisations publishing allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the claim on Tuesday and refused the injunction. He then kept a temporary ban in place so the man can go to the Court of Appeal. Anonymity and reporting restrictions remain. Naming him, or publishing details that would identify him, would be a contempt. This newspaper will not do either.
The defendants are Independent Television News, which makes news for ITV, Channel 4, Good Morning Britain and Channel 5, and Guardian News and Media. They told the court they believe it is in the public interest to report allegations that the man abused his status to engage, or to try to engage, in inappropriate sexual activity with a large number of girls and young women. He denies the allegations. The judge was explicit that the court had not determined whether any of them were true, and that dismissing the claim was not approval of whatever the defendants might later publish.
Why the injunction was refused
The man asked for a permanent injunction because, he said, publication would create a real and immediate risk to his life. The judge took that seriously. He found that a decision allowing publication, the anticipation of it, and publication itself would each materially increase the risk of suicide, and that the increase would be very substantial. He also found that the proposed articles are not the sole cause of the man's psychiatric condition, and not the only source of his present distress.
An injunction, the judge said, would remove one trigger for as long as it lasted. It would not treat the underlying condition, remove a higher baseline of risk, or stop a deterioration caused by other pressures. He dismissed the claim under Article 3 of the European Convention for substantially the same reasons, and rejected the Article 8 claim because the man had not identified a proper domestic legal basis for the order he wanted. The injunction, Nicklin said, would be an exceptionally serious interference with the rights on the other side. The reasonable response from the state, he found, is treatment and risk management through psychiatric services, not a prior restraint on publication.
What the Order Does This Week
- The claim is dismissed. A permanent injunction is refused.
- The court did not rule on whether the allegations are true. The man denies them.
- Anonymity stays in force while an appeal is considered. Identifying him is unlawful.
- Any reasons for appeal must be lodged by 4.30pm GMT on Monday 9 November.
- Permission to appeal was granted because the case raises important questions on Articles 2 and 3.
The appeal, and the silence
Sara Mansoori KC, for the claimant, asked for time. She said her client is in a highly vulnerable position and had not been able to give instructions on an appeal. Nicklin granted permission anyway. He said there was a compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case, because the judgment decides important questions about the state's positive obligations under Articles 2 and 3. The deadline for lodging reasons is 4.30pm GMT on 9 November.
Until that appeal is decided, or abandoned, the public knows the shape of the case and not the name. That is the point of the order, and it is why Wednesday's front pages could report a celebrity losing a gagging bid without saying who he is. The same morning, ministers promised a statute for a different kind of identification, the live facial recognition camera. One is a court keeping a name back. The other is a government deciding when the state may match a face in the street. They are not the same argument. They are the same city's argument about who gets to be known.
Anyone in distress can call the Samaritans free, at any hour, on 116 123, or visit samaritans.org.