An unnamed British celebrity is fighting to keep her identity out of a sexual harassment lawsuit because she fears making the allegations public could sour her relationship with her son.
The unnamed man, referred to as “PPT” in court documents, told his lawyer that his bond with his child was important to him and that publishing the allegations could result in “loss or serious harm” to the relationship, according to the Supreme Court’s decision released Tuesday.
His legal team argued that the impact of his death, serious self-harm or long-term psychiatric hospitalization would also have devastating consequences for his son.
Judge Matthew Nicklin gave “very significant” weight to the family life argument in his decision, but ultimately found that it did not outweigh the right of media organizations to publish their investigations.
The celebrity had tried to stop ITN and the Guardian from publishing allegations that he used his fame and influence to pursue inappropriate sexual relationships with young women, some much younger than him.
Some of the alleged behavior may constitute a crime if proven.
The unknown celebrity denies the allegations.
The court heard his mental health deteriorated after media outlets sent him letters seeking comment in May. He has a history of depression and suicidal thoughts, and the judge found that the prospect of publication would significantly increase his risk of suicide.
The celebrity also attempted to block the broadcast on the grounds that it would violate his rights to life, privacy and protection from degrading treatment.
Judge Nicklin rejected his claim, finding that the proposed news story concerned matters of significant public concern and that an injunction would amount to an extremely serious interference with media organisations’ freedom of expression.
The judge emphasized that the case is not about determining whether the allegations of sexual harassment are true.
Media outlets said their investigation included interviews with more than 100 people, including more than 30 sources with firsthand information, as well as review of contemporaneous documents.
Although the celebrity lost his bid to cease reporting, his identity is being protected for now while he considers the appeal.