David Walliams Fails in Bid to Block Publication of Allegations

David Walliams has lost a high-profile legal battle to remain anonymous regarding serious allegations made against him. The 55-year-old comedian and author had sought a permanent injunction to prevent the publication of an investigation by the Guardian and ITV News, but his request was denied by the High Court. He was named by the Guardian and ITN because he had no sound legal reason to prevent the news organisations’ investigation from being published.

The legal challenge began as a poorly kept secret, as the comedian’s application—which would typically have remained anonymous—was briefly listed under his own name on a court register. In response to the allegations surfaced by the media, Walliams stated he was “not a sexual predator” and had not “broken the law.” The 55-year-old’s bid for an injunction had been an open secret from the start after what would have normally been an anonymised application briefly appeared under his own name on a court cases register.

During the full trial held last month, his legal team made an unusual argument to justify a permanent gagging order.

Rather than claiming that the journalists were relying on confidential information or private material they had no right to publish, his lawyers contended that the publication itself would pose such a severe threat to his life that it would constitute a breach of his human rights by the court.

Mr. Justice Nicklin, presiding over the case, concluded that this legal maneuver was unprecedented. Under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the state has a specific duty to protect life when it holds direct responsibility for an individual, such as police protecting a potential target from a known threat. The British state has a duty to take reasonable steps to try to protect life where they can do so and, importantly, where a particular body has an actual responsibility to do so, under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There’s no expectation that a state agency can save all lives in all circumstances – but it must show it has done its best if it is clear it had a responsibility to act. Even if the intended victim is a gangster, the most obvious example of this law in practice is that the police must try to act on credible intelligence of a threat to life.

The judge clarified that while the state has obligations, this responsibility does not extend to the court in the way the defense suggested. He noted that the duty to protect Walliams fell to the clinicians and the hospital where the comedian had already been detained for his own safety. The court, therefore, could not be held responsible for his psychiatric treatment or ongoing physical protection.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the suggestion that the case involved a breach of private family life, finding no evidence to support such a claim. Mr. Justice Nicklin emphasized the importance of the media’s right to freedom of speech, especially concerning an investigation deemed to be in the public interest.

The ruling highlighted that if the allegations reported by the news organizations were found to be factually incorrect, Walliams would have the standard legal avenue of pursuing a defamation claim. Having failed to secure the injunction, the comedian was named in reports by the respective news outlets on Tuesday. If the media were wrong about their claims, Walliams could later sue for defamation – the way that any wrong party seeks redress against journalists.