Celebrity accused of 'inappropriate sexual activities' STILL cannot be named despite losing his High Court bid because he may appeal
The Royal Courts of Justice in London. Mr Justice Nicklin is due to rule at 2pm on whether ITN and The Guardian may publish sexual abuse allegations against the celebrity known only as PPT.Mr Justice Nicklin, who ruled that the hospital detaining PPT under the Mental Health Act bore legal responsibility for his safety, not the court.
The man, referred to throughout proceedings only as PPT, had claimed his life would be endangered if the allegations became public — but Mr Justice Nicklin held that the psychiatric hospital holding him under the Mental Health Act, not the court, was responsible for keeping him safe. PPT did not dispute the accuracy or fairness of the reporting; his sole ground for seeking to suppress it was human rights law, specifically Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention.
Journalists canvassed more than 100 people and gathered testimony from 30 witnesses, with their reporting alleging that PPT used his celebrity status to prey on young women across a period of years — behaviour that could constitute criminal offences.
The judge acknowledged that publication carried a 'genuine, grave' suicide risk but held that this alone did not compel him to grant an injunction, concluding that psychiatric care could lower that danger.
PPT retains the right to appeal, and the legal protection of his anonymity stays in force until that appeal window expires — meaning naming him in the interim is a criminal offence.
