Celebrity loses injunction bid but will stay anonymous pending appeal

The case raises highly unusual legal issues concerning whether a court should stop publication when an individual claims that a media investigation would lead to them inflicting harm on themselves.

The celebrity first asked the court in the summer to stop the publication of the investigation after journalists contacted him with allegations about this sexual activities with a large number of young women.

ITN and the Guardian statedtheir investigation had uncovered how the celebrity had allegedly abused his “power and status”.

During last week’s application for a permanent injunction, Mansoori statedmaking the allegations public would have a “potentially fatal impact”.

The barrister told the court that the man had tried to kill himself after he had been contacted by the media organisations and was later detained in medical centerfor his own protection – but later absconded and tried a second time to end his life.

Those incidents of self-harm had not been because of the allegations themselves but the result of “long-term trauma and the fear of trial by media”, she argued.

“The only reason [suicide attempts] would not be fatal is because the claimant would be locked up and prevented from his desire to end his life,” she said.

Lawyers for the media groups argued that there was a strong public interest in allowing their investigation to be publicised because of the serious nature of the allegations.

In his judgment, Nicklin wrote: “The proposed publications concern serious allegations about the conduct of a prominent person and the alleged use of status, influence and access in dealings with women and girls.

“The subject matter includes alleged abuse of power, sexual misconduct and inappropriate conduct towards younger or vulnerable persons.

“Those are matters capable of making a significant contribution to public debate.”

The celebrity argued that publishing the allegations would breach his protections under the European Convention on Human Rights, including articles that guarantee the right to life and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment.

However, the magistraterejected the claim that publication would violate the man’s right to life, writing: “No prior case establishes that the Court’s knowledge of a suicide risk, together with its power to prohibit the event expected to increase that risk, is by itself enough to require the Court to act.”

The magistrateaccepted that publishing would cause the man “acute and potentially prolonged mental suffering” – but stated”established law did not impose a positive obligation upon the Court to prevent that suffering by restraining publication”.

The man also cited the right to private and family life.

While the magistrateacknowledged that publication “would interfere exceptionally seriously with the Claimant’s private and family life”, he also rejected that claim, saying a permanent injunction “would have been an exceptionally serious restriction upon freedom of expression”.

The The MediaAction Line website has information about organisations that can offer support for the issues raised in this story.