The Guardian reported Wednesday that a London High Court judge reserved judgment on a bid to block two media groups from publishing investigations, in a case weighing press freedom against an anonymous claimant’s safety concerns.
A public judgment in the case, identified as PPT v Independent Television News Limited and Guardian News & Media Limited, says the proposed reports concern serious allegations about PPT’s conduct over several years. The judgment records that he broadly denies the allegations; the court has not determined their truth.
The claimant is referred to by the court-assigned cipher PPT under an order barring publication of his identity and details likely to identify him. He seeks a final injunction to prevent Guardian News & Media and Independent Television News (ITN) from publishing or broadcasting material from their investigations.
The claimant relies on Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with Article 8 also relevant to his case. Those provisions concern life, protection from inhuman or degrading treatment and privacy. The media organizations invoke Article 10, which protects freedom of expression, and say publication would serve the public interest, according to the court judgment.
During closing submissions, Gavin Millar KC, the outlets’ lead barrister, argued that the organizations had an obligation to publish information they considered in the public interest, The Guardian reported. The newspaper said the investigation spoke with more than 100 people, 30 of whom gave first-hand accounts. The Guardian also reported that the outlets said some contributors hoped sharing their experiences would help other women and aid their own recovery.
The Guardian said PPT’s lawyers cited two previous suicide attempts. In its summary of an independent expert’s evidence, the newspaper reported that an inpatient stay at the time of publication could reduce the risk. The expert did not conclude that suicide was inevitable or that psychiatric treatment could eliminate every risk.
The court’s Oct. 9 judgment addressed anonymity and open justice but did not decide the injunction request. The two-day trial ended Oct. 28, and The Guardian reported Wednesday that Mr Justice Nicklin had reserved judgment; the outlet did not identify a date for his decision.
