An anonymous British celebrity is fighting to keep his identity out of a sexual misconduct case because he fears the allegations becoming public could destroy his relationship with his son.
The unidentified man, referred to in court documents as “PPT,” told his lawyer that his bond with his child was important to him and that publication of the claims could cause the relationship to be “lost or seriously damaged,” according to a High Court judgment issued Tuesday.
His legal team argued that the impact of his death, serious self-harm or a prolonged psychiatric hospitalization would also have devastating consequences for his son.
The judge, Matthew Nicklin, gave the family-life argument “very substantial weight” in his ruling, but ultimately found it did not outweigh the media organizations’ right to publish their investigations.
The unidentified celebrity at the center of a fight to keep his identity secret has revealed the reason he wants to remain anonymous: He fears the allegations would ruin his relationship with his son. Getty Images
Judge Matthew James Nicklin (above) ruled the celebrity’s concerns did not outweigh media organizations’ rights to publish their investigations. Avalon
The celebrity had sought to prevent ITN and the Guardian from publishing allegations that he used his fame and influence to pursue inappropriate sexual relationships with young women, some considerably younger than him.
Some of the alleged conduct could amount to criminal offenses if proven.
The unknown celebrity denies the allegations.
The case is playing out in London’s High Court (pictured). Peter Dazeley
The Guardian had sought to publish allegations that the celebrity used his fame and influence to pursue inappropriate sexual relationships with young women. Getty Images
Want more celebrity and pop culture news?
Start your day with Page Six Daily.
Thanks for signing up!
The court heard that his mental health deteriorated after the 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 substantially increase his risk of suicide.
The celebrity also attempted to block publication on the grounds that it would violate his rights to life, privacy and protection from degrading treatment.
Judge Nicklin dismissed his claim, finding that the proposed reporting concerned matters of substantial public interest and that an injunction would amount to an exceptionally serious interference with the outlets’ freedom of expression.
The Royal Courts of Justice building houses the High Court and Court of Appeal. Getty Images
The unidentified celebrity claims that the prospect of the allegations becoming public would increase his risk of suicide. Getty Images
The judge stressed that the case was not about determining whether the sexual misconduct allegations were true.
The outlets have said their investigation involved interviews with more than 100 people, including more than 30 sources with firsthand accounts, as well as a review of contemporaneous documents.
Although the celebrity lost his bid to stop the reporting, his identity remains protected for now while he considers an appeal.