The High Court will deliver judgment tomorrow on an action for damages taken by a former leading swimmer who was identified by the BBC in a radio programme about his alleged sexual abuse by the former coach George Gibney.
The swimmer said he was extremely upset when the station, to which he had given the interview for a programme on sexual abuse among sports coaches broadcast on BBC Radio 5 in October 1995, disclosed his identity.
The BBC has admitted liability, and Mr Justice Barr is being asked only to assess damages.
Yesterday the judge granted an application on behalf of the swimmer to amend the statement of claim to include a claim for aggravated damages.
The swimmer alleges negligence on the part of the BBC as well as breach of contract and breach of a confidential or common-law duty of confidence and respect for his privacy.
Mr Justice Barr asked that the plaintiff's identity not be revealed as, he said, to do so would defeat the purpose of the action.
Yesterday a clinical psychologist, Dr Peter Colquhoun, who interviewed the swimmer after the broadcast to determine what effect the revelation of his identity had on him, denied questioning him in a manner calculated to "soften him up " or make him more amenable to a settlement of the action.
Dr Colquhoun, a witness for the BBC, acknowledged that the man twice broke down during the course of four hours of interviewing.
But he could not recall, although he would not deny, suggesting to the swimmer that he could expect to be cross-examined in court in the same way he was questioning him during the assessment interviews.
Mr Justice Barr said this was an appalling state of affairs which had been revealed by the swimmer in evidence and which had not been contradicted by the defence.
Dr Colquhoun denied that he acted recklessly or in an unprofessional manner in his examination.
During exchanges between the judge and Mr Denis McCullough SC, for the BBC, Mr Justice Barr said he was satisfied a remark to the effect that the swimmer could expect to face cross-examination as difficult as the questioning he was then undergoing was made by the psychologist.
Mr McCullough said this was to prejudge the issue. Nowhere had this been suggested in a letter sent by the plaintiff's solicitor.
Mr McCullough said that, if it was said, it was not with a view to intimidating the plaintiff. This matter had been raised only by the judge.
The aggravated damages claim had never been part of the plaintiff's case until the cross-examination of Dr Colquhoun by the judge, counsel said.
He asked Mr Justice Barr to discharge himself from the case but the judge replied that he would not do so.