A public figure accused of sexual misconduct, who was denied an injunction last week that would have prevented his identity from being revealed, has not filed an appeal before the required deadline.
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 accusations included what The Guardian described as “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities with girls and young women”.
PPT’s legal team previously denied that the man in question had 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.
Last week, this request for an injunction was denied, although the person’s identity had to remain out of the public domain pending a potential appeal. At the time, it was said that this deadline was 9 November at 4.30pm UK time.
On Monday afternoon, numerous outlets reported that this deadline had been missed. The man’s identity will still remain anonymous until it is published by either Guardian News & Media (GNM) or ITN.
At the start of the case in late October, judge Mr Justice Nicklin started proceedings by warning people against trying to guess PPT’s identity on social media, and pointing out that “several different individuals” had already been named amid the speculation.
“This is a difficult and important case,” he explained. “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.
“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.”
Legal reps for The Guardian and ITN had previously said that these 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.