David Walliams, 55, lost his High Court bid for a permanent injunction that would have kept his name out of the Guardian and ITV News investigation into sexual misconduct. Mr Justice Nicklin rejected the request last week, clearing the way for publication after Walliams failed to lodge an appeal by the Monday deadline. The entertainer had argued that publishing the allegations was "highly likely" to lead him to kill himself, citing two previous suicide attempts in May and July. His lawyers claimed only the court could protect his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which cover the right to life and prohibit inhuman treatment. This unprecedented legal strategy collapsed because the judge determined that the state’s duty to protect Walliams’ life fell to NHS clinicians and the hospital where he was detained, not the judiciary. The court concluded it had no responsibility for his psychiatric safety, so it could not suppress public-interest journalism to prevent harm.
The legal reasoning behind the ruling
The judge found the risk of suicide to be "genuine, grave and closely connected" to the decision, but ruled this finding was "necessary but not sufficient" to block the story. He emphasized that the state is not obliged to guarantee that suicide will not occur or eliminate every residual risk, placing that burden squarely on mental health services. Walliams’ counsel, Sara Mansoori KC, argued the case raised novel issues based on unusual facts, but she needed more time to prepare an appeal due to her client’s vulnerable condition in hospital. The judge gave him until 4:30 pm on Monday to submit proper grounds for challenge, but those papers were never filed. Without an appeal, the anonymity order lapsed, allowing the news organizations to name him immediately. Gavin Millar KC, representing the media groups, had argued that granting such an injunction would represent a "radical and unprincipled expansion" of court duties. He pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights has never recognized a judicial duty to protect a claimant from self-harm by stopping publication. The judgment balances Walliams’ Article 8 right to private family life against the media’s Article 10 freedom of expression, with the judge accepting that publication would have an "exceptionally grave" impact on his personal life. However, he prioritized the substantial rights of the sources to communicate their experiences and the public’s right to receive information on matters of significant public interest.
Allegations and industry response
The joint three-year investigation alleges that several women, who do not know one another, were targets of unwanted sexual advances from Walliams when they were teenagers. One woman, known as Alex, met him at a fan event in 2004 when she was 15 and claims they had sex when she was 17, stating "I think I was groomed. 100%." Another, Jade, alleges he tried to lift her shirt and commit an act she now describes as sexual assault when she was 15 in 2007. Lilly Creightmore, who waived her anonymity, said she felt "instantly pressured to share a bed" with him after moving in as a flatmate at 18. Walliams denies all claims, calling himself "not a sexual predator" and stating he has not "broken the law," though he regrets behaving thoughtlessly towards people in casual relationships. HarperCollins dropped him as an author following an internal investigation into inappropriate behavior towards junior employees, including an intern who described a consensual relationship as an "abuse of power." Sky removed content featuring him and cancelled its adaptation of his fantasy feature Fing!, while the BBC took Little Britain off iPlayer. Syco Entertainment said it had no knowledge of the allegations at the time, and Fremantle UK stated no complaint had ever been made against him during the Britain’s Got Talent era. The Metropolitan Police contacted the news organizations to ensure potential victims are aware of how to report criminal allegations, closing the loop on a legal battle that defined the limits of press freedom versus personal safety.
