Celebrity May Be Named After Missing Appeal Deadline

The unnamed man had until 4:30 p.m. on November 9 to appeal a High Court decision refusing to block the Guardian and ITN from publishing allegations of sexual misconduct. The Civil Appeals Office had received neither an appeal nor a request for extra time by 4:50 p.m. His identity remains protected until one of the outlets publishes allegations identifying him.

Court Rejects Bid to Silence Reporting on Celebrity Allegations

A celebrity’s attempt to prevent reporting on serious allegations has failed, leaving the Guardian and ITN free to publish them once they identify him. He missed the November 9 deadline to appeal the High Court ruling; his identity remains protected until publication.

The outlets say their investigation involved interviews with more than 100 people, including 30 with firsthand accounts. Their lawyers argued there was a strong public interest in publishing credible allegations, which the man denies.

The man’s lawyer argued publication could put his life at risk, citing two suicide attempts and his current hospital care. The judge recognized the prospect of severe mental suffering but concluded that the state’s duty to protect him did not require restraining the press, and that NHS psychiatric services could provide care.

The ruling puts the public’s right to hear the results of an investigation ahead of a demand to suppress reporting. The court had allowed an appeal, but no appeal or request for an extension had arrived by the deadline.

Press Freedom Prevails as Court Rejects Life-or-Death Plea

A man who said publication of allegations could lead him to take his own life has lost his chance to appeal the High Court ruling before the deadline. The Civil Appeals Office had received no appeal or extension request by 4:50 p.m. on November 9. The Guardian and ITN may reveal his identity when they publish allegations naming him.

His lawyer told the court that he had attempted suicide twice, was receiving hospital care and faced a serious risk if the allegations became public. The judge accepted that publication could cause acute, prolonged suffering, but ruled that this did not justify an injunction that would sharply constrain freedom of expression.

The outlets say they interviewed more than 100 people, including 30 with firsthand accounts, and argue that the allegations are credible and in the public interest. The man denies wrongdoing. His lawyer disputed the outlets’ public-interest assessment and argued that publication could have fatal consequences.

The ruling leaves the press free to publish, while the court said the state’s duty to protect the man could be met through NHS psychiatric services. The judge had permitted an appeal on the legal question, but the deadline passed without one being filed.