Take 10: 6 November 2026

Welcome to RPC's Take 10 newsletter, bringing you the latest updates in media and communications law, including key legislative developments, relevant news and the latest cases. If you have any questions on any of the content covered in this edition, please reach out to a member of the team.

PPT' loses injunction bid

The 'famous' man seeking to prevent the Guardian and ITN from publishing allegations of sexual misconduct, who said he would kill himself if they went ahead, has lost his bid to obtain an injunction against the media organisations. The man known as 'PPT' cited Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR in his attempt to restrain publication. The judge recognised that there was a real and immediate risk to PPT's life through suicide, but found that the responsibility for his immediate safety rested with the psychiatric hospital and mental health services and the risk of suicide could be managed or reduced through treatment. There was no legal basis for placing an obligation under Article 2 (or 3) on the media in these circumstances. The judgment makes clear that a claimant must have a recognisable cause of action in relation to the prospective publication. No misuse of private information claim was advanced, but the judge in any event found that he would likely have found in favour of the media's Article 10 rights over PPT's Article 8 rights, relying on the public interest value in the journalism. PPT has been given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal – if this is not pursued the media organisations will be free to name him shortly.  

Brand sought to avoid criminal trial due to "trial by media"

Following Russell Brand's conviction for rape and sexual assault yesterday, it has emerged that – prior to trial - Brand had sought to persuade the Court that it would not be possible for him to have a fair trial as his reputation had been destroyed through 'trial by media'.  Brand claimed that journalists had deliberately plotted to get him prosecuted and had perverted the course of justice. The judge concluded that the jury could be selected from members of the public who had not read the Times and Sunday Times reporting or seen the Dispatches programme, and suggested that Brand's complaints about the public being turned against him had been exaggerated, pointing to a 2,000-strong audience for one of his shows after allegations were first made.  In an extraordinary exchange outside the court following the verdict, Brand's counsel Ian Winter KC was reported to have confronted a journalist who worked on the earlier media reporting, saying "I hope you are pleased with yourself" and "You f***** it".  Brand was found not guilty of two other counts of rape and one count of indecent assault.  

Anonymity over spent conviction

In an interesting decision from the First-Tier Tax Tribunal, anonymity was granted to an appellant challenging the UK Border Force’s refusal to restore seized goods, where the refusal referred to a spent conviction in Germany relating to customs offences. The Tribunal found that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not directly confer a substantive right to anonymity. However, it found that identifying the appellant by name would interfere with Article 8.  Upon assessing whether the interference is justified by reference to open justice and Article 10 principles, the Tribunal found there was insufficient public interest in publishing the appellant's identity. The respondent has 56 days to appeal from receipt of the decision.

Ofcom given green light on Online Safety Act data demands

The High Court has upheld Ofcom’s information notices against Meta, X and TikTok, marking the first judicial review to test Ofcom’s powers to issue such notices.  Under s.100 OSA, Ofcom may issue notices requiring services to provide "any information" required for Ofcom to exercise "any of [its] online safety functions". The notices in question request wide-ranging data to assist with Ofcom's 'Monitoring & Evaluation' programme (see [21] to [26]). The platforms challenged the notices on grounds including statutory breaches, pre-determination, ECHR interference, ultra vires and proportionality, with X's evidence indicating that compliance would cost "millions of pounds". The Court rejected all grounds as unarguable, save for proportionality which was rejected on its merits.  

Tommy Robinson convicted for harassing journalists

Southwark Crown Court has convicted Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) of two counts of harassment causing fear of violence against two journalists following a majority jury verdict. The harassment included online posts, direct messages, the use of private investigators to obtain home addresses, and a phone call in which Mr Robinson told one of the victims: “I’m coming to get you.” The harassment followed a Daily Mail and MailOnline article about Robinson "stoking riots from his sunbed" published after the August 2024 Southport murders. The offence carries up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The sentencing hearing is listed for 16 December 2026. See further details in the BBC's report.

Amersi v BBC trial begins

The highly anticipated libel trial of former Tory donor Mohamed Amersi against the BBC commenced on 28 October.  The case relates to allegations that Mr Amersi was involved in deals which he knew were corrupt made in a Panorama programme and online article.  Mr Amersi claims that he lost out on a knighthood and a peerage amid the BBC's reporting. The BBC disputes serious harm and is understood to be defending the allegations as true and in the public interest. See further details in the Guardian's report. Mr Amersi is expected to give evidence for six days from 11 November, with the trial expected to conclude in December.  

Wall Street Journal trumps the President

A US federal judge has dismissed President Donald Trump’s $10bn libel lawsuit against Dow Jones.  The claim related to the Wall Street Journal's reporting on a letter allegedly written by Trump to Jeffrey Epstein (prior to any charges against Epstein for sex offences).  The letter, which was reported to include "bawdy" language and a drawing of a woman's naked body, formed part of a 'birthday book' prepared by Ghislaine Maxwell.  WSJ's report included Trump's denial that he wrote the letter or drew the image. Citing First Amendment principles, Judge Darrin Gayles found that Trump had failed to establish actual malice against the publisher.  The Judge found that the claim was “grasping at straws” in its "attempts to manufacture flaws with the investigation" and dismissed the case 'with prejudice', meaning that it cannot be refiled.

Meaning in letter to MP deemed defamatory

In Chandale v Sovereign Network Group and others, the High Court determined preliminary issues on the meaning of a letter sent by the Third Defendant.  In circumstances where the only publishee of the letter was the Claimant’s MP, and the letter was sent in response to queries raised with the Second Defendant by the same MP, it will be interesting to see whether the Defendants rely on a common law qualified privilege defence, and if so, whether and on what basis the Claimant pleads malice in reply.

CMA considers dispute between Meta and publishers

The CMA is investigating whether Meta’s proposed commercial terms for businesses using its platforms may breach competition law. The terms could allow the platform to collect content from the websites of businesses (including publishers) which it would be entitled to use in providing its own services, including its AI features. Meta has said there are no grounds for an investigation and has paused rollout of the terms pending consultation with industry groups. Similar tensions have recently been discussed in the CJEU's first generative AI case.  The Advocate General has opined that the Court should find that the retrieval and reuse of online press publications by AI chatbots in real time may infringe the rights of press publishers in some circumstances. 

Effective age assurance

Ofcom has published a rapid assessment of what “highly effective” age assurance looks like for determining whether individuals are aged over 16. The assessment is aimed at informing parliamentary debate on the government’s proposed new online age restrictions, including the under-16s social media ban expected in Spring 2027. The assessment identified four effective methods for determining 16+: photo ID matching, banking information, digital identity services and facial age estimation (with a challenge age). Credit card verification, mobile network operator checks and email estimation were additionally identified for determining 18+.  

Quote of the fortnight

"I found what Mr Winter did quite extraordinary. There's a really serious point here, which is that it was not [the journalist] who found Russell Brand guilty at Southwark Crown Court. It was a jury of eight men and four women who have sat through this case. They've listened to the evidence, they've listened to the defence, and they have gone away and come back with some very considered verdicts. By impugning [the journalist's] integrity, what Mr Winter is doing – and he should really be called to account for this – he's impugning the integrity of the entire case"

Sunday Times Editor Ben Taylor, speaking on Times Radio

With thanks to additional contributors: Ula Kieren and Emily Jenkins