Person’s anonymity remains in place subject to any appeal against high court decision
A “well-known individual” has failed in his bid to stop two media organisations from publishing allegations of inappropriate sexual activities, the high court has ruled.
The legal team for the anonymous individual, known in court only as PPT, claimed he was “highly likely” to attempt suicide if the allegations were published by the Guardian and ITN. PPT denies the allegations.
The claimant is seeking to block publication of the allegations by citing article two of the European convention on human rights, which relates to the right to life, article three, relating to “inhuman or degrading treatment”, and article eight, which protects the right to respect for private and family life.
Mr Justice Nicklin said: “A decision permitting publication, the anticipation of publication and publication itself would each materially and very substantially increase the claimant’s risk of suicide.”
However, he ruled that there were not conditions for the court to block publication of the allegations under those articles. He found that it fell to the state’s health services to protect the claimant from harm.
“In the present case, the state has assumed responsibility for the claimant’s immediate safety through the psychiatric hospital and mental health services,” his ruling states.
“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 2 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.”
The anonymity of the claimant remains in place because the judge granted him permission to appeal against the ruling.
