The serial killer Dennis Nilsen yesterday lost a high court battle to force prison authorities to hand back a confiscated manuscript of his autobiography so he could finish it for publication.

Mr Justice Maurice Kay rejected his claim that the home secretary, David Blunkett, and the governor of Full Sutton prison near York had unlawfully breached his right to freedom of expression by refusing to hand over the manuscript.

The judge ruled that the prison authorities were entitled to take account of the feelings of victims' families and others in preventing a prisoner from publishing a book.

Nilsen's lawyer, Alison Foster QC, had argued at a recent hearing that the case raised an issue of general importance for other prisoners in a similar position.

Nilsen, 57, a former civil servant, admitted killing and butchering 15 young men, most of them homeless and gay, at his north London home. He admitted dismembering some of the bodies, boiling up the parts and attempting to flush them down the drain.

He was jailed for life in 1983, with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of 25 years, on six counts of murder and two of attempted murder. He was later given a "whole life" tariff.

Mr Justice Kay said the home secretary was "entitled to have regard to the likely effect of publication on members of the public, including survivors and the families of victims of Mr Nilsen's serial offences".

He added: "I am unimpressed by the suggestion that anyone can choose not to read whatever may be published."

Up to five copies of the 400-page manuscript are thought to be outside the prison, one possibly in the hands of a Sunday newspaper.

The prison authorities won a ruling in May 2002 that they were entitled to see a copy, which was sent by Nilsen's solicitor. But they refused to hand it back because its contents were "not within the scope of materials a prisoner may lawfully publish".

Nilsen's offences were "as grave and depraved as it is possible to imagine," the judge said. "To his credit, he takes no issue with the convictions or the tariff."

Mr Justice Kay said part of the manuscript dealt with aspects of his life before he committed the offences and another part gave "considerable detail" about the killings. A third part is "a diary of prison experiences with reflections on the criminal justice system".

The judge said he was "entirely satisfied" with the home secretary's decision: "This case is an object lesson in why private feelings and public outrage may be matters of highly relevant concern."