On Tuesday, ITV News and The Guardian named comedian and children's author David Walliams, 55, in a joint investigation. One woman said he sexually assaulted her at his London home when she was 15, and others said he groomed them as teenagers. The outlets' lawyers said reporters spoke to more than 100 people, including more than 30 with first-hand accounts. Walliams denies the allegations. "I am not a sexual predator," he wrote to the outlets. "I have not broken the law." He fought in court to block the reports, and that held them up for months. A judge turned him down last week. He stayed anonymous until his time to appeal ran out on Monday. No court has ruled on whether the allegations are true, and no reports say he has been charged. The BBC is removing some of his shows, including Little Britain, while it reviews his work.

Naming Him Was the Right Call

The judge and the outlets say the public interest in these allegations outweighs his privacy.

Free speech wins this one. High Court judge Matthew Nicklin ruled that blocking the reports would be an "exceptionally serious interference" with freedom of expression. The outlets argued that their investigation was rigorous and that the public had a strong interest in it. The Guardian's editorial board said the allegations "deserve publication."

Keeping him safe is his doctors' job. Walliams was detained under the Mental Health Act in October. Nicklin said that made his doctors and the hospital, not the court, responsible for his immediate safety. He also said an injunction wouldn't treat Walliams's condition or remove his risk.

Courts shouldn't shield the powerful. The Telegraph's editorial board wrote that "human rights laws were not designed to protect the powerful from scrutiny." It said using the courts to silence journalists "fundamentally undermines the principles of an open society."

But the Law Let Him Stay Anonymous While He Fought

Some politicians say secret injunction fights let famous men delay scrutiny, and they want limits.

Famous men can fight the press in secret. Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy raised the case in the House of Commons. He noted that Walliams "remained anonymous" while he fought the reports, and he named Mohamed Al Fayed and Russell Brand as other cases. He asked the government to "stop the abuse of injunctions and super-injunctions."

The government says it's looking at changes. Justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the government is "concerned" about these injunctions and is "looking at what more we can do." She declined to comment on the court's decision itself. The Telegraph called action "overdue."

Publishing Put a Life at Risk Over Untested Claims

His lawyers say the reports endangered his life, and no court has tested the allegations.

His lawyer says he has twice tried to take his own life. His barrister, Sara Mansoori, told the court he attempted suicide after the outlets sent him letters asking for his response. She said he later tried again and went into hospital for psychiatric care. Nicklin accepted that he has a "serious and longstanding psychiatric vulnerability" and that publication would substantially raise his risk.

His lawyers blame fear of a trial by media. They said his reaction came from "long-term trauma and the fear of trial by media." Mansoori said the case raised "novel issues of law based on unusual facts." Walliams says he behaved "thoughtlessly" at times but never broke the law.

Where This Lands

Nicklin and the outlets say the public's interest in these allegations outweighed Walliams's privacy and that his doctors, not the courts, are responsible for keeping him safe. Timothy says the bigger problem is that Walliams could fight the reports while no one knew his name. The government now says it's looking at changes to injunctions. Walliams's lawyers say the reports put his life at risk over claims no court has tested. The Metropolitan Police has contacted the outlets to make sure anyone with an allegation knows how to report it.

Sources