A famous man has lost his bid for a High Court injunction against two media organisations to prevent the publication of allegations against him but he cannot yet be named.
The man, who cannot be identified, is bringing 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.
During a two-day trial in late October, the High Court in London was told by lawyers for the media organisations 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 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, following two previous suicide attempts.
Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the injunction bid in a judgement on Thursday. The man will remain anonymous to allow any appeal bids to be lodged.
The judge ruled that the man can take his case to the Court of Appeal.
In a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said: “The court did not determine whether the allegations, or any of them, were true, and the dismissal of the claim does not amount to approval of any publication the defendants may decide to make.”
The judge continued in his summary 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.
He added these statements do not “establish that suicide is inevitable or that treatment cannot reduce the risk”.
In his full, 52-page judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin also said: “The injunction would not treat the claimant’s underlying psychiatric condition or eliminate his elevated baseline risk.
“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.”
Sara Mansoori KC, for the figure, asked the court for time to decide whether they would seek the green light to challenge the ruling.
She said her client is “in a highly vulnerable position” and has “not been in a position to give us instructions on any appeal”.
The barrister previously said he denies the allegations of wrongdoing and that publication “would have a potentially fatal impact”.
She told the court in October: “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 also said the claimant “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.”
He later said: “Plainly, the proposed publication would make a valuable contribution to a debate of public importance, about men using their power to be able to misconduct themselves against women in that area of society.”
Read MoreWorker at UK's oldest park sues for £200k after claims slide made him pop artery
Australia's highest court hears challenges to social media ban for children
UK cyber chief says the UK will face AI cyberattacks on critical infrastructure by 2028
Reform UK councillor charged with counts of rape and making indecent images of child
Ofcom: BBC must provide clear picture of impact cuts will have
Halloween party attack: third boy arrested on suspicion of attempted murder
