Nicklin will not determine the truth or accuracy of the allegations, only whether they can be published.
He also urged the press and public not to speculate about the identity of the man, who is referred to in court as PPT.
“The existence of online speculation, however confidently expressed or widely repeated, does not authorise anyone to identify, or purport authoritatively to identify, PPT in connection with these proceedings,” he said.
“Nor does repetition transform speculation into established fact.”
Sara Mansoori KC, representing the man, told the court that any publication “would have a potentially fatal impact”.
The barrister told the court: “The only reason they would not be fatal is because the claimant would be locked up and prevented from his desire to end his life.”
She said the man had made a suicide attempt after receiving letters from ITN and GNM asking for his response to the allegations, and later absconded from hospital and attempted suicide for a second time.
She added in written submissions: “This is not a case where an individual has spuriously raised ‘mental health’ concerns in the face of an impending publication that they do not wish to occur.
“The claimant has attempted suicide twice as a result of these matters, been hospitalised for months, been the subject of involuntary detention and been examined by multiple – now more than 10 – doctors.”
Mansoori also said the man “has no intention of returning to public life”.
Gavin Millar KC, for ITN and GNM, said in written submissions that “numerous allegations” had been gathered during “a wide-ranging and rigorous investigation” and that there was a “strong” public interest in publishing them.
He said reporters had spoken to more than 100 people, and that the resulting allegations “indicated a pattern of behaviour”.
Millar later said many of the women “have been traumatised by the claimant’s alleged conduct and have suffered mental health crises and mental illness as a result”.
He added that while the state may have a responsibility to protect life, applying that principle to this case would require the state to intervene in “lawful journalistic activities” to prevent “an autonomous act by the claimant himself”.