Yesterday, we began with an email landing in someone’s inbox, and a question: can a risk to life stop a story?
The High Court has given its answer. In this case, it could not.
Mr Justice Nicklin accepted that PPT’s risk is genuine and grave. He also accepted that the risk was capable of mitigation through psychiatric treatment. But he found that stopping lawful journalism on these grounds would mean creating a new category of legal duty, a development which the High Court cannot properly undertake.
For completeness, the judge also carried out a balancing exercise, weighing PPT’s rights against the right to publish. On the scales, he gave great weight to PPT’s health and family life. But they did not outweigh the public interest in the journalism, or the right of the women who spoke to journalists to tell their own stories, especially as the ban could have lasted indefinitely. It was not his role to decide whether the allegations are true.
For now, PPT remains anonymous and will stay so while any appeal is being considered. The judge also repeated that speculation online does not make it lawful to name him.
Beyond the courtroom
In our view, an appeal is likely and could be heard quickly. The court heard evidence that the uncertainty of waiting is itself harmful to PPT’s health, which gives every reason for speed.
But reputation does not wait for a court’s timetable.
Going to court did not keep the story quiet. It put the case in the headlines. The judgment itself, though anonymised, contains detailed information about PPT’s mental health and treatment. The judge acknowledged this was a serious intrusion into PPT’s privacy but said it was part of the price of open justice, showing that legal action can bring more into the public domain, not less.
The outlets told the court they intend to report PPT’s denials and any response he gives. How he responds, if and when the story runs, will matter.
And his is not the only reputation at stake. The way ITN and the Guardian publish, and how they handle the welfare concerns the court heard about, will be watched closely. So will the response of any organisations he has worked with.
As we wrote yesterday, a court can decide what is published, but it cannot decide what people believe. That will be for the court of public opinion.
Mozi’s teaching was to choose the lesser of two harms. The court has weighed what it can for the moment. For everyone involved, the choices that will shape their reputations start now.
Written by Shan Willenbrock, Director at Byfield.