Injunction against ITN by a well known individual?

[TheRealSmurfette]

Who is it?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/oct/16/well-known-individual-tries-to-secure-permanent-injunction-against-guardian-and-itn

He’s had severe depression in the past. For once, this ain’t blackmail.

I say leave the howling mob out of it till he’s been convicted of something.

Yes, he’s prob guilty and yes, the courts are rubbish at convictions which is why we have to have trial by media, but enough with the witch hunt.

Goong to admit I’m not sure about this hunt though; is this a different one to all the others?

I don’t think people’s mental health should be ignored just so we can enjoy some drama and scandal. If he has broken the law, there should be a police investigation and the usual rules of confidentiality applied.

Injunctions mean that the wealthy are given extra protection by the legal process.

Well, if it's already in the public domain, what would be the point of an injunction now?

As the law currently stands those accused do not get anonymity.

I don’t know what the rules are, I’m just saying the usual rules should apply.

I hope the mental health of this man’s alleged victims is protected with equal care but maybe not if they can’t afford expensive lawyers?

I find the use of article two of the European convention on human rights, which relates to the right to life, a bit of a stretch, it being entirely our own responsibility whether we interfere with that or not? But maybe I am missing something as a non-lawyer?

The Times has some more details in addition to those reported in the Guardian. Just to give some more context, here are some extracts from the article:

.

Sara Mansoori KC, representing the celebrity, told the court the man was “a well-known individual who suffers from very serious mental health problems”.

“He has attempted suicide twice in recent months, was involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act for a period during the summer, and remains seriously ill,” she added.

The barrister said that ITN and The Guardian were planning to report information contained in two letters sent to the celebrity in the spring that “is likely to cause him to attempt to suicide again”.

[...]

The celebrity had chosen not to engage with the state-provided healthcare offered to treat his mental health issues after his release from hospital, the court was told.

Dr Inti Qurashi, a consultant forensic psychiatrist instructed as a joint legal expert, said the celebrity’s psychiatrist told him: “We offered [him] access to a mental health crisis team to support him and also to provide support to his girlfriend and PA. He declined.

[...]

Gavin Millar KC, representing the media organisations, said if Mr Justice Nicklin decided the court had a duty to protect the celebrity, he would have to decide what “reasonable steps” the state was required to take.

Millar said the judge would need to decide whether to “restrain publication of journalistic material” or if the duty fell on a state body such as NHS mental health services for the treatment of “individuals suffering from mental disorder who ought to be detained in the interests of their own health and safety”.

[...]

The judge previously said: “The court must start by according very substantial weight to the principle of open justice. There is a clear presumption in its favour unless that presumption is displaced by a sufficiently powerful countervailing justification.”

The judge ordered the exclusion of an hour-long filmed interview of the celebrity, conducted by his solicitor on Tuesday, in which he challenged some of Qurashi’s findings. The judge said the interview raised issues about whether the celebrity “has been truthful at all times with his treating clinicians”.

Really? I have heard a few rumours over the years . . .

Maybe check the rules then.

It's well-known on SM, this is just to stop speculation. Most people know what and whom this is all about.

And I thought it was recommended, by Samartins and such, to not respond to such coercive threats?

That’s what I was wondering.

Exactly

Best to say nothing. If their is wrongdoing it needs to put in front of a court and the evidence tested, not gossiped about on SM

I see what you did there. Nice work.

If it is just a lady, it seems to be an open secret so the reputational damage won’t be cataclysmic, just expected.

So they are saying he’s unwell now due to this? He hasn’t been pictured in ages. What actually were the allegations?

Exactly this, I work in the justice system lots of people convicted of lots of very serious offences have mental health issues especially depression and anxiety, many have made suicide attempts. Their names are still made public, including details of offences. You shouldn't be able to buy a different experience of the criminal justice system.

This report is unlikely to be about Walliams, in that case. This application wouldn't even get off the ground if the name has been published previously.

We all know who this is. He has spent quite long periods in hospital this year due to suicide attempts as he can’t face any accountability.

I find this to be a very cynical use of the judicial system. He has a long history of predatory behaviour and any decision he makes on the back of being brought to justice is his choice. To try to emotionally blackmail everyone to be quiet or they’ll drive him to suicide is typical of a narcissistic manipulator.
Where’s the same concern for his victims? Of whom there are many.

Yes, this one seems to point in a different direction. I'm sure it's DW and not DJ, though. I've never heard anything untoward about DJ.

I hope they publish because every man ever accused of anything will threaten suicide if they don't. We have to name and shame or they won't worry about consequences. Maybe they could put him in a secure hospital for a couple of months to minimise the threat.

I remember Jeremy Clarkson saying that a super injunction is ruinously expensive. So they must have a lot of money.

It would be charitable to lay off an individual undergoing mental health treatment though.