'Well-Known' Public Figure Denied Injunction But Will Remain Anonymous Pending Appeal

An undisclosed public figure has been turned down for an injunction preventing their name from being mentioned as the subject of numerous allegations of misconduct.

Last month, it was reported that a “well-known individual” – referred to in court simply as PPT – had been seeking a legal injunction to prevent The Guardian and the news production company ITN from publishing allegations about him.

These apparently included allegations of “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities with girls and young women”.

PPT’s legal team had previously denied that he ever used “his power and position as a celebrity to contact and forge relationships with young women and teenagers to try to have sex with them”.

They also argued that the publication of these claims could place PPT at a high risk of suicide, stating that he was still “seriously ill” after two previous attempts on his life in recent months.

On Tuesday afternoon, Mr Justice Nicklin, the judge overseeing the case, said that this injunction would not be granted. However, the public figure in question would temporarily remain anonymous in order to allow the person in question to appeal the judge’s decision.

At the beginning of the case, Justice Nicklin started proceedings by warning people about trying to guess PPT’s identity on social media, pointing out “several different individuals” had already been named amid the speculation.

“This is a difficult and important case. The court must determine it fairly, on the evidence and legal submissions, while respecting both the principle of open justice and the protective purpose of the orders already made,” he said.

“I ask that the court be allowed to perform that task without further attempts to identify PPT or any other person whose identity is protected.”

The legal team representing The Guardian and ITN said the media outlets had “not just the responsibility, but the duty to publish information we believe to be in the public interest”.

“They have made a substantial commitment to being contributors, and were extremely anxious for the publication and the broadcast to go ahead as soon as possible,” said barrister Gavin Millar.