Mr Justice Nicklin has rejected a celebrity injunction bid at the High Court, refusing a permanent ban on publication by ITN and. The man will stay anonymous while the appeal window remains open, a narrower outcome than he sought but one that keeps reporting restrictions alive for now.
Two-day trial evidence
Last week’s two-day trial placed the court’s focus on whether naming him and publishing allegations of sexual misconduct should be blocked altogether. Mr Justice Nicklin said the claim for an injunction was dismissed, but he also made clear that the court did not determine whether the allegations, or any of them, were true.
Sara Mansoori KC told the court that publication would have a potentially fatal impact. In written submissions, she said the claimant had attempted suicide twice, had been hospitalised for months, and had been examined by more than 10 doctors.
ITN and case
ITN and argued that publication was in the public interest because the man, they said, abused his status to attempt or attempt to engage in inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women. Gavin Millar KC said reporters had spoken to more than 100 people and that the resulting allegations indicated a pattern of behaviour.
The judge’s ruling leaves the legal fight split in two: the permanent ban is gone, but the temporary injunction remains in place during the period allowed for any appeal. For anyone following the case, that means the identity issue has not been settled in public, even though the court has refused to keep the name suppressed indefinitely.
Appeal period and anonymity
The man denies the allegations and, at the trial, the court heard he denied abusing his power and position as a celebrity to contact and forge relationships with young women and teenagers to try to have sex with them. That denial matters because the case is still about publication, not proof; the court’s ruling opens the door to appeal while keeping the name under restriction in the meantime.
Who the celebrity is, and whether he will appeal, remains the unanswered part of the case. For now, the immediate result is simple: the permanent injunction failed, the temporary protection stayed in place, and the public still cannot be told the name at the centre of the dispute.
