Celebrity accused of sex abuse could be named after he appears to miss deadline for appealing injunction refusal decision

A celebrity who tried to gag the media over allegations of sexual misconduct could be unmasked after apparently failing to appeal a High Court ruling that allows details to be published.The Court of Appeal said it had not received anything from the star before the deadline of 4.30pm today, which suggests reporting restrictions on his case may be lifted.The well-known individual had made the 'unprecedented' argument that he would kill himself if the claims went public.However, High Court judge Mr Justice Nicklin refused to grant an injunction last week, ruling that ITN and The Guardian newspaper would be free to report the allegations if the celebrity did not lodge an appeal by the deadline.The news outlets say they have interviewed more than 100 people with knowledge of the celebrity's alleged misconduct, including 30 with 'first-hand' accounts.At 4.50pm today, the Civil Appeals Office said it had not received any notice of appeal or application for an extension of time from the star.His lawyers did not respond to requests for comment on the matter.It's claimed the man, named only as PPT, abused his status to conduct 'inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities' with 'a large number' of women and girls. He denies any wrongdoing. The unnamed celebrity accused of sexual misconduct is set to be unmasked after he decided not to appeal against the High Court's decision to reject his injunctionHe had applied for an injunction against ITN and The Guardian, arguing that they would breach his right to life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by publishing the claims as this would cause him to kill himself.However, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the celebrity's threat did not make suicide 'inevitable', and that an injunction would be 'an exceptionally serious restriction upon freedom of expression'.'It would prevent [the media outlets] from publishing the results of their investigations and prevent their sources from communicating their accounts,' he said.'I accept that publication would cause the claimant acute and potentially prolonged mental suffering. His vulnerability and the likely psychiatric consequences are matters of great seriousness.'However, he said the state's obligation to protect the celebrity's life was fulfilled by NHS psychiatric services, and did not extend to silencing media reports.'I have concluded that the court is not legally required and has no basis to restrain the [media outlets'] publications,' he said.He added that, if the celebrity did not appeal by 4.30pm on Monday, reporting restrictions protecting his identity would be 'discharged automatically upon the first publication by either [ITN or The Guardian] of the allegations which identifies him'.Mr Justice Nicklin had given permission for PPT to appeal, saying there was an important question at stake about the courts' responsibility to stop people from killing themselves under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).'It is important that such an appeal should take place without delay,' he said.Last week, the celebrity's lawyer Sara Mansoori KC said he was in a 'very vulnerable' state and had not been in a position to instruct his solicitors. Rather than claiming the stories would breach his right to privacy, as celebrities have done previously, the man claimed they would endanger his life and expose him to inhumane or degrading punishment under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.Ms Mansoori told the court her client had already tried to kill himself twice since learning of the allegations, including while absconding from a secure clinic in July. She said he is currently being cared for in hospital.'The [media outlets] wish to publish allegations of wrongdoing which he denies and which the evidence is clear will highly likely lead to his death or psychological injury,' she said.'They say they have a duty to publish because it's substantially in the public interest, but their assessment of the public interest is wrong. A newspaper does not have the right to publish information at the cost of an individual being killed or maimed.'The only way [publication] wouldn't be fatal is if the claimant is locked up and prevented from taking his own life.'Ms Mansoori accused the media outlets of being determined to publish the stories 'regardless of whether he dies or spends months in psychiatric detainment'.The court heard that when PPT was told about the allegations in May, his 'body language completely changed' and he went into a state of 'extreme panic'.'He started saying that he wanted to kill himself and would seek to do so,' said Ms Mansoori. 'Publication of these allegations would lead to a very substantial increase in suicidal ideation.'He attempted suicide in May when he was first notified of the defendants' intention to publish, and again in July, on that occasion absconding from secure hospital to do so.'Gavin Millar KC, for the media outlets, described PPT's argument as 'unprecedented' and risked dragging the courts into 'assessing the causes of suicidal ideation, which are for professionals and not for a judge'.'His contention is that if the allegations are published he will commit suicide, and the state's duty requires this court to restrain [the media] from publishing them,' he said.'If the state owes a duty to PPT, it is discharged by NHS mental health services and practitioners. The obligation falls on the hospital to keep him safe, and that's that.'There is a strong public interest in publishing these allegations which are credible and which [the outlets] believe to be true.'He added the journalists' research suggested the celebrity had 'abused his power... to prey on young women for sexual purposes over an extended period'.A psychiatrist who assessed PPT said his mood disorder was treatable and it would be 'significantly safer' for him to remain in a secure hospital if the allegations were published.