Health1 min read

Why Walliams' unprecedented legal battle to stay anonymous failed

By · Published by Everything Blog

In short

David Walliams attempted to block media organizations from naming him in a sexual misconduct investigation by invoking Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. His legal team argued that public exposure posed a severe risk to his life, but the High Court determined the duty of care fell upon his hospital clinicians. The reporting proceeded after Walliams' lawyers failed to submit appeal grounds before a court-mandated deadline of 16:30 GMT on Monday. Walliams has denied the allegations, maintaining that he has not broken the law or acted as a sexual predator.

Key points

  • Media organizations secured the right to publish after Walliams' legal team failed to fil…: Media organizations secured the right to publish after Walliams' legal team failed to file an appeal before the designated deadline.
  • The bid for secrecy was already compromised after Walliams' real name briefly appeared on…: The bid for secrecy was already compromised after Walliams' real name briefly appeared on a publicly accessible court cases register.
  • The court prioritized media freedom of speech to report on matters of public interest ove…: The court prioritized media freedom of speech to report on matters of public interest over the unprecedented right-to-life legal challenge.

Sources checked by our analysis pipeline: 1

- Published

David Walliams' unprecedented legal battle not to be named in relation to allegations against him went downhill as he tried to secure a permanent injunction.

He was named by the Guardian and ITN because he had no sound legal reason to prevent the news organisations' investigation from being published. In response to the allegations included, Walliams said 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.

His exceptionally unusual attempt to gag the media - forever - became clear at the full trial last month - but that's when his bid to remain anonymous got worse.

In court, his lawyers did not claim that the investigation would be disclosing legally confidential or private information the journalists were not entitled to - two avenues often trod to silence reporters.

Instead lawyers for Walliams argued that such was the threat to his life…

Health