High Court denies injunction sought by David Walliams to block sexual abuse allegations
Judge Nicklin refused to grant a permanent injunction preventing the Guardian and ITN from publishing claims about Walliams, citing the need to protect press freedom despite concerns over his mental health.
The High Court rejected a request by author and television presenter David Walliams for a permanent injunction that would have stopped the Guardian and ITN from publishing allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour. Walliams, identified in court as PPT, denied the claims and argued that publication would likely trigger a suicide attempt, invoking Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to protect his right to life, freedom from inhuman treatment and privacy.
Lead barrister Sara Mansoori KC said Walliams had attempted suicide in May and July after being contacted about the allegations and contended that only the court could shield him from the “driver of his suicide attempts – publication of the allegations”. The media’s lead counsel, Gavin Millar KC, countered that the European Court of Human Rights has never recognised a duty to prevent self-harm by restricting publication, describing such an injunction as a “radical and unprincipled expansion” of judicial responsibilities.
Both parties agreed on a single joint medical expert, who concluded that Walliams had a serious psychiatric vulnerability and that the prospect of publication would markedly increase his risk of suicidal ideation, though the expert did not deem suicide inevitable.
Judge Nicklin found the risk of self-harm “genuine, grave and closely connected” to any decision on publication, but ruled the finding was “necessary but not sufficient” to justify an injunction. He emphasized that the state, not the courts, bears primary responsibility for Walliams’ immediate safety through NHS mental-health services. Balancing the competing rights, the judge held that the public interest in the allegations and the sources’ right to speak outweighed the potential impact on Walliams’ private life, noting that the journalism “concerns matters of substantial public interest” and would make a “significant contribution to public debate”.
Walliams was granted permission to appeal the decision but did not file an appeal by the deadline.