A UK male celebrity has failed in their attempt to gain an injunction

The injunction would prevent them being named in connection with allegations that they leveraged their status to engage in the solicitation of inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities with teenagers and young women. These allegations were going to feature in an investigative journalism piece which involves interviews with some 100 or so affected females.

The basis for the injunction was that the celebrity, if named, would likely attempt to commit suicide as they had previously attempted on two occasions. The court has rejected the injunction request but has ruled that the celebrity cannot be named yet pending their option to appeal.

There is the wider issue of whether anyone should be named by the media in connection with criminal allegations before such time as they are convicted and I would be inclined to say no they shouldn't. Trial by media does not serve the principle of innocent until proven guilty. In this particular case it has not been said definitively that the allegations involve any criminality rather than inappropriate behaviour alone, although I've seen it suggested that criminality is potentially involved.

What I don't like about this case is the use of threats of suicide to seek an injunction and I'm pleased that the court has rejected that, at least until the appeal stage. Anyone using suicide to manipulate an outcome should never be enabled or empowered and certainly not by the law. The court basically took the position that it's the job of mental health services to provide measures to ensure the safety of the individual, not the court. They took the view that if they granted this injunction then it could open a huge can of worms and result in cases such as where criminals might seek to avoid conviction on the basis that prison would make them kill themselves.