World · Europe · 7 hrs ago
Celebrity could be named after missing UK appeal deadline
A British celebrity could be identified after missing a deadline to appeal a ruling in London.
The Court of Appeal said it had received no appeal or request for more time by 4:30 p.m.
on Monday.
The reporting restrictions remain until publication: the High Court ruling says they end when The Guardian or ITN first publishes allegations that identify him.
The outlets say their investigation included interviews with more than 100 people, and the celebrity denies any wrongdoing.
His lawyers argued that publication could endanger his life, while the judge said an injunction would seriously restrict freedom of expression and was not legally justified.
The outlets can now publish their findings, but the celebrity’s name will remain unknown unless they do.
A British celebrity missed the 4:30 p.m. Monday deadline to appeal a High Court ruling refusing to block publication of sexual misconduct allegations.
The Court of Appeal said it had received no appeal or request for an extension by 4:50 p.m.
The celebrity’s identity may be published if the Guardian or ITN first publishes allegations identifying him.
He denies wrongdoing and has argued that publication would put his life at risk.
The High Court said an injunction would be a serious restriction on freedom of expression and that NHS psychiatric services met the state’s duty to protect him.
- Who
- An unnamed British celebrity, identified in the Daily Mail as PPT. The Guardian and ITN are the media outlets seeking to publish allegations.
- What
- He missed the deadline to appeal a ruling refusing an injunction against publication. His identity may be disclosed when either outlet first publishes allegations identifying him.
- When
- Monday, by the 4:30 p.m. deadline. At 4:50 p.m., the Civil Appeals Office said it had received no appeal or extension request.
- Where
- The case was heard in London’s High Court.
- Why
- He argued publication would endanger his life and violate his rights. The judge ruled that an injunction was not justified and would restrict freedom of expression.
The celebrity
The Guardian and ITN
Aspect
The celebrity
The celebrity's view
The Guardian and ITN
The Guardian and ITN's view
Publication
The celebrity
He argued that publishing allegations would endanger his life and breach his rights.
The Guardian and ITN
They sought to publish the results of their investigation into alleged sexual misconduct.
Allegations
The celebrity
He denies wrongdoing.
The Guardian and ITN
The outlets say their reporting is based on interviews with more than 100 people, including 30 with first-hand accounts, according to the Daily Mail.
The Guardian approached the celebrity for comment about allegations, according to Page Six.
The celebrity sought to block publication, arguing that it would put his life at risk.
High Court judge Matthew Nicklin refused to grant an injunction and allowed time for an appeal.
The deadline to appeal passed; the Court of Appeal had received no appeal by 4:50 p.m.
- Appeal deadline
- 4:30 p.m. Monday
- Court
- London’s High Court
- Media outlets
- The Guardian and ITN
- Investigation interviews
- More than 100 people, including 30 with first-hand accounts, according to the Daily Mail
- Celebrity’s position
- He denies wrongdoing
2 sources
What people are saying
I have concluded that the court is not legally required and has no basis to restrain the [media outlets'] publications,
It would prevent [the media outlets] from publishing the results of their investigations and prevent their sources from communicating their accounts,
very vulnerable