What the celebrity injunction means for press freedom

Manveen Rana (0:01)

From the Times and the Sunday Times, this is The Story. I'm Manveen Rana.

Last week, news broke that an unnamed male celebrity had filed an injunction to prevent some astonishing claims from being published.

SPEAKER_2 (0:20)

The very well-known individual, you would absolutely know who this man is. He brought an injunction against ITN and the Guardian newspaper to stop them revealing these allegations.

SPEAKER_3 (0:29)

ITN and the Guardian want to report on these allegations after a four-year investigation.

Manveen Rana (0:33)

And those allegations concern him attempting to engage in inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities with a large number of young women.

SPEAKER_4 (0:44)

The lawyer said they had first-hand accounts from 30 sources. That was the Guardian alone, I believe, combined. It's somewhere near 100

Manveen Rana (0:52)

It's not that unusual for celebrities to take out court orders to stop the press reporting stories that could damage their reputations. What was highly unusual about this case was the reasons given.

SPEAKER_3 (1:05)

He has written directly to news outlets saying he will take his life for the earliest opportunity if these reports are published.

Manveen Rana (1:12)

It left the judge facing an incredibly difficult dilemma. On the one hand, you have the mental health of a man threatening suicide. On the other, the principle of freedom of speech and the freedom to report allegations about powerful figures. That decision has now been made. But what were the arguments the judge had to consider? And will the allegations or the identity of the man at the heart of this storm ever be published?

The Story today, a celebrity injunction versus freedom of the press.

Pia Sarma (2:00)

In-house lawyers work closely with journalists and editors. And yes, our main job really is to look at copy stories that are being prepared for publication. But I would say there's a lot more to that.

Manveen Rana (2:11)

That's Pia Sarma, editorial legal director at Times Media, basically our chief lawyer.

Pia Sarma (2:18)

So I think there's an opportunity when you're advising editors and journalists to see where the law is and how it might change. I was involved in the Defamation Act when it came in many years ago, 2013, and in particular looking at what's known as the public interest offence. And I was very keen, as so many of my colleagues were, to ensure that really the laws for investigative journalism are liberated within reason. Because over the years there have been so many battles where people in positions of power exercise their authority to suppress information which really informs society. So for me, I find it very important because the information reaching the public domain can't be unnecessarily fettered otherwise society is deprived.

It is part of a good working democracy that that works in a balanced way. I've tried through my career to take cases, defend cases and work with editors and advise them to take cases which we think we can win and which might have a positive effect on the law for the future.

Manveen Rana (3:18)

It's really vital, I think, for a good working democracy.

Pia, the case we're talking about today is one that a lot of journalists are particularly fascinated in because it could change the way we work going forward. Take us back to the start. Where does this story begin?

Pia Sarma (3:36)

So the story starts back in 2022 before the courts were involved when journalists were doing their job at ITN, joined a year later by The Guardian, gathering information and talking to sources about a particular individual who is very high profile, described as a celebrity, a male. And the investigation proceeded over a course of many years, the two media organizations working together, to the point where they decided that they had enough information about an individual to approach him for comment. Now, this is a very, very important part of journalism, to try and give the subject of your investigation an opportunity to respond. So you can check facts, but also so you get their side of the story. You never know what you don't know. And that part of the journalistic inquiry, obviously, is incredibly important. But it also forms part of a legal defense. And without it, it is sometimes very, very hard to publish very, very damaging allegations.

So this story started with an investigation by journalists. And it only reached the courts at the point that those journalists asked this individual for his response to many, many years of inquiries.

Manveen Rana (4:47)

That was back in May this year, which also just gives you listeners a sense of how long some of these investigations can take and how painstaking they are. What happened when they approached him for the right of reply?