There’s been this odd story percolating through the British media in the past few weeks. The story: a still-unnamed celebrity man was on the verge of being outed as a serial predator of women and girls, and his identity is common knowledge in many British circles. As of yet, his identity has not been published. That’s because this guy ran to court and he’s currently blocking publications from identifying him or publishing anything about his alleged crimes. His lawyers are in court this week seeking an injunction because he claims that if his identity is outed or published, he’ll harm himself. (Sidenote: the man in question is not Russell Brand, who is also in court this week in London because he’s openly facing charges for his crimes.)

A celebrity has asked the High Court to prevent two news organisations from publishing his identity and allegations that he abused his status for many years to engage, or attempt to engage, in “inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women”.

The unnamed celebrity is seeking an injunction, and his legal team told the first day of a trial on Tuesday that any publication would be “highly likely” to lead him to kill himself. They told the court that his drastic reaction was not because of any wrongdoing, but because of the fear of “trial by media”.

The man denies 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”, the court heard. The legal team for ITN and Guardian News and Media (GNM) told the court that the celebrity’s “suicide risk” could be mitigated and there was no proper basis “to restrain the publication of public interest journalism”.

A medical report carried out for the court said inpatient treatment could provide “significant, but not complete mitigation of the risk”, but that treatment, perhaps for months, had “a realistic potential to reduce the risk”.

The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, said there was “significant public interest” in the proceedings and that “this is a difficult and important case”. He added: “The court must determine it fairly, on the evidence and legal submissions.”

Nicklin will not determine the truth or accuracy of the allegations, only whether they can be published. He also urged the press and public not to speculate about the identity of the man, who is referred to in court as PPT.

“The existence of online speculation, however confidently expressed or widely repeated, does not authorise anyone to identify, or purport authoritatively to identify, PPT in connection with these proceedings,” he said. “Nor does repetition transform speculation into established fact.”

Sara Mansoori KC, representing the man, told the court that any publication “would have a potentially fatal impact”. The barrister told the court: “The only reason they would not be fatal is because the claimant would be locked up and prevented from his desire to end his life.”

[From BBC]

My question: if certain British media outlets have their own interviews with PPT’s (alleged) victims, isn’t this issue actually one of legal liability with the outlet’s in-house lawyers? Let me spin it out as a hypothetical: if the Daily Mail did an interview with one of PPT’s victims, where she’s speaking on the record about how PPT did this or that, that’s a matter for the Mail’s editors and their in-house legal team as they gauge a victim’s right to tell her story and public interest versus whether or not they will be sued for any of it. Plus, it sounds like we’re talking about a situation where PPT is on the verge of being investigated criminally or sued in civil courts. I don’t know, I really don’t. I just think it’s a terrible precedent for an alleged serial predator to dictate what can and cannot be said about his crimes in the media.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.