David Walliams lost his High Court bid to remain anonymous after a judge ruled against his attempt to stop the media from publishing allegations, per BBC News reporting.
The entertainer sought a permanent injunction to prevent The Guardian and ITN from publishing an investigative report containing allegations of sexual misconduct. Walliams was referred to in court documents as “PPT,” but his identity became known as the public’s perception of the case was complicated by gossip over who “PPT” really was.
The joint investigation stems from inquiries launched by The Guardian in 2023 into allegations concerning professional and personal contexts, alongside a separate inquiry by ITV News into conduct toward junior female employees, Deadline reported.
“The evidence does not establish that suicide is an inevitable consequence of publication or that psychiatric treatment and containment are incapable of providing substantial protection,” wrote Mr Justice Nicklin in his ruling.
Counsel argues publishing allegations creates self-harm risk
Walliams’ legal counsel argued that publishing the allegations would violate his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights by creating a high risk of self-harm. Sara Mansoori KC told the court that the celebrity made an attempt on his own life in May after being contacted about the claims, and again in July after absconding from a secure hospital, as reported by The Irish Times.
The defense compared the situation to the lifetime injunctions granted in 2001 to Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who murdered James Bulger in 1993, to protect them from external violence. However, Gavin Millar KC, representing the media outlets, argued that granting an injunction over self-harm risks would represent a radical and unprincipled expansion of court duties.
Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that while the risk of suicide was genuine and grave, the obligation to protect Walliams fell upon the NHS and its mental health services, rather than the court deciding the legal dispute. The judge ruled that Article 10 freedom of expression outweighed Walliams' right to privacy, because the investigation contributed to public debate.
Legal barrier lifted after missed appeal deadline
Following the judgment, the High Court granted Walliams until 16:30 GMT on Monday to submit proper grounds for an appeal. Because no paperwork was filed within the deadline, the legal barrier preventing publication was lifted.
“It is slightly concerning that there is not an ability to proceed today. I don't understand really. If I was satisfied that there were compelling reasons why permission to appeal should be granted I could say so now,” Mr Justice Nicklin said.
“There is a degree of urgency – the court has moved exceptionally quickly to accommodate this trial and produce this judgment,” Mr Justice Nicklin said.
Journalists from ITN and The Guardian interviewed more than 100 people during their investigation, gathering first-hand accounts from over 30 sources including friends, colleagues, former partners, and relatives. Walliams said he was “not a sexual predator” and had not “broken the law.”
Frequently Asked Questions About the Injunction Case
Why did the court reject the argument to protect Walliams from self-harm?
Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the state’s duty to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights rested with the NHS and its mental health services, not with a civil court presiding over a media dispute.
What specific allegations are the news organizations investigating?
The Guardian and ITN investigated allegations of inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities involving younger women and girls, alongside separate inquiries into conduct toward junior female employees at another workplace.
Why did social media users discuss the identity before the court ruling concluded?
The public’s perception of the Walliams case was complicated because his name became known from the start, sparking widespread online speculation prior to the official lifting of reporting restrictions.
Related reading