The injunction bid

On Friday, 16 October, a man who cannot be identified asked the High Court in London for a permanent injunction against ITN, which produces news for ITV and Channel 4, and Guardian News and Media, the publisher of the Guardian. Journalists at both organisations had investigated his alleged conduct towards a number of people over a period of years, in professional and personal settings. He denies the claims, including an allegation that he committed a sexual offence. A temporary order currently bars the media from revealing his identity. The case is due to be heard at a trial in late October.

Mental health claims

Sara Mansoori KC, acting for him, described her client as a well-known individual with very serious mental health problems. She told the court he has attempted suicide twice in recent months, was detained for a period during the summer under the Mental Health Act 1983, and remains seriously ill. Medical evidence put before the court says publication would almost certainly lead him to attempt to take his own life. His legal team argues that publication would breach articles two and three of the European Convention on Human Rights, the first of which concerns the right to life.

A psychiatric report from an expert witness is expected to tell the trial that there is a high risk of a further attempt in the short term after any judgment permitting publication. According to Mansoori, effective mitigation would probably require him to be held in a secure environment where he is contained and cannot harm himself.

Media response

ITN and the Guardian oppose the injunction, arguing that the freedom of the press to report matters of public interest should prevail. Their lawyers say the relevant ECHR duties are not triggered and should not prevent publication. In a skeleton argument they add that any risk to him could be mitigated, particularly if he continues to be in a safe place. The two organisations sent letters to him in the spring of 2026 after their investigation, and he responded by denying the allegations and submitting medical reports on the risk to his life.

Protected identities

Two individuals who have agreed to be identified in any ITN and Guardian report were granted anonymity in the current proceedings. A third journalistic source, a woman who alleges she was the victim of a sexual offence by him, has also been given anonymity. On Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin imposed a further order preventing the identification of three women who have made allegations in the case until the trial concludes. The nature of the allegations, and how the two sources relate to him, is not known.

Court process and next steps

Mr Justice Nicklin said on Friday that he wanted to keep the proceedings as open as possible, limiting private hearings as far as he could even where the evidence may be upsetting or embarrassing for those involved. He added the following about the case.

“This case is going to be controversial either way it is decided.”

The trial, due to be held in late October, will decide whether the restriction on naming him and publishing the allegations becomes permanent. Until then, the court has protected the identities of everyone involved in the allegations, and ITN and the Guardian are preparing to argue their case at that hearing.