A well-known individual known in court only as PPT has failed in a high court attempt to stop the Guardian and ITN publishing allegations that he engaged in inappropriate sexual activity with young women, which he denies. The judge accepted that publication would materially increase his risk of suicide but ruled that protecting him was the responsibility of the state's mental health services, not the court.
The ruling followed an application by PPT to restrain publication, in which he cited articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights, covering the right to life, protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, and respect for private and family life. His legal team said he had attempted to kill himself twice since being contacted about the allegations in May, and that on the second occasion he absconded from a secure hospital to do so. They argued he was "highly likely" to attempt suicide if the allegations were published.
Mr Justice Nicklin accepted the risk. He concluded that a decision to permit publication, the anticipation of publication and publication itself “would each materially increase the claimant's risk of suicide”, adding: “That increase would be very substantial.” But he found that responsibility for protecting PPT lay with the state's mental health services rather than the court. PPT is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, and the judge said the hospital “has assumed responsibility for the very risk with which article two is concerned”. He said it can provide significant protection, and that inpatient treatment materially reduces the likelihood of suicide even if it cannot eliminate it.
According to the ruling, the Guardian and ITN allege that PPT used his power and status as a well-known public figure to establish contact with young women "who were also considerably younger than him" and to engage, or seek to engage, in inappropriate sexual activity. The outlets say the alleged incidents took place over several years and that some of them, if proved, could amount to criminal offences. Nicklin stressed that the case did not examine whether the allegations were true, only whether the court should prevent publication, and said the proposed journalism "did not lose its public interest value" merely because the allegations were disputed.
Balancing PPT's rights against the outlets' right to freedom of expression, the judge found that an injunction "would constitute an exceptionally serious interference". It would prohibit publication of the results of investigations into "allegations of serious wrongdoing by a prominent individual" and prevent sources from communicating their experiences to the public, he said. He also rejected a proposal for an injunction to remain in place with a reassessment of the claimant's condition after 18 months, finding no clinical basis for selecting that or any other period. PPT's anonymity remains in place because the judge granted him permission to appeal.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The ruling rejects suicide risk as a ground for stopping publication where the state already provides mental health care, a limit on prior restraint that affects how media outlets handle sensitive investigations.
- It allows the Guardian and ITN to publish allegations they have investigated, and allows the sources behind those allegations to speak publicly.
- The anonymity order continues pending an appeal, so publication may still be delayed or contested.
Background
UK courts can grant injunctions to restrain publication where a person's right to privacy under the European convention on human rights is judged to outweigh the media's right to freedom of expression. This case was unusual in relying not only on privacy but also on the right to life and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, because of the claimant's psychiatric detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. The judge was asked to decide whether the risk to the claimant justified stopping publication, not whether the allegations themselves were true.
Key Perspectives
PPT's legal team: argued he was "highly likely" to attempt suicide if the allegations were published, citing two attempts since he was contacted about the claims in May.
Mr Justice Nicklin: found that publication would materially increase the risk of suicide but that the hospital and mental health services, not the court, had assumed responsibility for that risk, and that an injunction would be an exceptionally serious interference with the outlets' rights.
The Guardian and ITN: according to the ruling, allege that PPT used his power and status to establish contact with young women considerably younger than him and engage, or seek to engage, in inappropriate sexual activity over several years; he denies the allegations.
What to Watch
- The appeal for which Nicklin granted permission, which will determine whether the anonymity order and any restraint on publication continue.
- Whether the Guardian and ITN publish the allegations while the appeal is pending.
- Any further clinical evidence about the risk to PPT, which the judge said did not support a fixed reassessment period.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe well-known individual lost his High Court bid to stop the Guardian and ITN publishing the allegations.World news | The Guardian: “A “well-known individual” has failed in his attempt to stop two media organisations from publishing allegations of inappropriate sexual activities towards young women, the high court has ruled.”
- SupportedThe judge accepted that publication would materially increase the claimant’s risk of suicide.World news | The Guardian: “The judge in the case, Mr Justice Nicklin, concluded he was satisfied that a decision to permit publication of the claims, the anticipation of publication and publication itself “would each materially increase the claimant’s risk of suicide”. “That increase would be very substantial,” he said.”
- SupportedThe judge ruled that protecting PPT from harm was the responsibility of state health services rather than the court.World news | The Guardian: “However, he found that it was for the state’s health services to protect PPT from harm in the form of mental health treatment, rather than the court’s responsibility to protect him by stopping the allegations from being published.”
- SupportedPPT’s anonymity remains in place because the judge granted him permission to appeal.World news | The Guardian: “The anonymity of the claimant remains in place because the judge granted him permission to appeal against the ruling.”
- SupportedPPT, known in court only by that name, denies the allegations of inappropriate sexual activity with young women.World news | The Guardian: “The legal team for the anonymous individual, known in court only as PPT, had claimed he was “highly likely” to attempt suicide if the Guardian and ITN published the allegations, which he denies.”
- SupportedPPT’s legal team argued he was “highly likely” to attempt suicide if the allegations were published.World news | The Guardian: “The legal team for the anonymous individual, known in court only as PPT, had claimed he was “highly likely” to attempt suicide if the Guardian and ITN published the allegations, which he denies.”
- SupportedPPT’s legal team said he had attempted suicide twice since being contacted about the allegations in May, and absconded from a secure hospital during the second occasion.World news | The Guardian: “PPT’s legal team said he had attempted to kill himself twice since being contacted about the allegations in May. On the second occasion he absconded from a secure hospital to do so, they said.”
- SupportedNicklin said the decision to permit publication, anticipation of publication and publication itself would each materially increase PPT’s suicide risk, and that the increase would be very substantial.World news | The Guardian: “The judge in the case, Mr Justice Nicklin, concluded he was satisfied that a decision to permit publication of the claims, the anticipation of publication and publication itself “would each materially increase the claimant’s risk of suicide”. “That increase would be very substantial,” he said.”
- SupportedPPT is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, and Nicklin said the hospital had assumed responsibility for the risk and inpatient treatment materially reduces the likelihood of suicide.World news | The Guardian: “The claimant is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The hospital exercises direct control over his care, observation, treatment, access to means of self-harm, leave and eventual discharge. It has assumed responsibility for the very risk with which article two is concerned. “The evidence establishes that the hospital can provide significant protection. Inpatient treatment cannot eliminate the risk, but it materially reduces the likelihood of suicide.””
- SupportedThe Guardian and ITN allege that PPT used his power and status to contact younger women and engage, or seek to engage, in inappropriate sexual activity.World news | The Guardian: “Nicklin’s ruling stated that the Guardian and ITN allege that the claimant used his power and status as a well-known public figure to “establish contact with young women, who were also considerably younger than him, and engage, and/or seek to engage in inappropriate sexual activity”.”
- SupportedNicklin said the case did not determine whether the allegations were true, but concerned whether publication should be prevented.World news | The Guardian: “The judge emphasised that the current case did not examine whether the allegations against the claimant were true, but only whether the court should prevent the media outlets from publishing them.”
- SupportedNicklin rejected a proposal for an injunction to remain in place with reassessment after 18 months, finding no clinical basis for choosing that or any other period.World news | The Guardian: “Nicklin rejected a proposal for the injunction to remain in place with a reassessment of the claimant’s condition after 18 months. “The evidence does not … provide a clinical basis for selecting that or any other period for reassessment, or for concluding that treatment would by then have reduced the publication-related risk sufficiently,” he found.”