A High Court ruling has cleared the way in principle for two media organisations to publish disputed allegations about a well-known man, while preserving his anonymity for now as he considers an appeal. The judgment does not decide whether any of the allegations are true.

The claimant, identified in court as PPT, argued that reporting would be highly likely to lead to suicide after two previous attempts. Mr Justice Nicklin accepted that allowing publication, anticipating it and publication itself would “each materially increase the claimant’s risk of suicide,” and said the increase would be “very substantial.” But he found that psychiatric hospital and mental-health services had assumed responsibility for managing that risk.¹

The claimant’s lawyers portrayed the case as an urgent protection-of-life issue, rather than a conventional privacy dispute. They said publication would have a “potentially fatal impact” and argued that their client’s vulnerability was genuine, not a tactical attempt to avoid scrutiny.² His representatives also said he denies wrongdoing and has no intention of returning to public life.

ITN and Guardian News and Media, by contrast, argued that an injunction would impose an exceptional restriction on journalism and prevent sources from speaking publicly. Their counsel said the reporting followed a “wide-ranging and rigorous investigation,” involving allegations that indicated a pattern of conduct, and maintained there was a strong public interest in publication.³

Nicklin ultimately agreed that a permanent ban could be too broad and potentially indefinite. He said the proposed restriction would prevent publication of investigations into serious alleged wrongdoing and stop sources from communicating their accounts, while stressing that dismissing the claim was not approval of any eventual report.⁴ Reporting restrictions remain in force during the period for an appeal.