The High Court has allowed allegations against David Walliams to be published, rejecting an unprecedented attempt to use the risk of suicide as grounds for a permanent injunction. The ruling pits an individual’s immediate welfare against the public’s right to hear claims about alleged abuses of power.

The Guardian and ITV News say their joint investigation gathered first-hand accounts from more than 30 sources. Several women allege that Walliams used his celebrity status to pursue young women and teenagers, including two who said they first met him at 15 and later felt groomed. The allegations also include claims of workplace harassment and an inappropriate relationship with a junior employee.¹

Walliams denies wrongdoing. In a response reported by the outlets, he said: “I am not a sexual predator. I have not broken the law,” while acknowledging that he had sometimes behaved “thoughtlessly” in casual sexual relationships.¹ His lawyers argued that publication would sharply increase the danger to his life after two suicide attempts, and that his relationship with his son could be seriously damaged.⁴

The legal question was not whether the allegations were true, but whether the court should suppress them to protect Walliams under human-rights provisions covering life, private and family life, and freedom from inhuman treatment. Mr Justice Nicklin accepted the suicide risk was “genuine, grave and closely connected” to publication, but concluded that responsibility for Walliams’ immediate safety lay with psychiatric services rather than censorship.⁴

The Guardian’s editorial position is that the women’s right to speak and the public interest outweigh the proposed restraint. It argues that an injunction would have “silenced the media and all his accusers” and created a chilling precedent for investigative reporting.² The opposing concern remains substantial: publication may cause profound personal harm. But the judgment draws a firm boundary—mental-health risk can demand care and safeguards without automatically granting a powerful public figure control over reporting about alleged misconduct.