The judge took the suicide risk seriously while defending investigative journalism and the right of women to tell their stories
The Guardian and ITVNews investigation into David Walliams has exposed difficult dilemmas for journalism. Last week, the high court helped clarify how to navigate them. The court heard that women had described to the Guardian how Mr Walliams, one of Britain’s most successful comedians and children’s authors, used his fame to prey on them for sex when they were young adults or teenagers. Publishing their claims carried a serious risk that Mr Walliams might take his own life. But this is a story of great public interest, and those women deserve to be heard. Some of them told the Guardian that they have lived with the effects of his alleged conduct for years.
For months, the Guardian and ITV News weighed concerns for him and his family against the women’s right to tell their stories. Both organisations wanted the court to scrutinise the evidence and rule on publication. If they then decided to proceed, Mr Walliams and his carers would be given time to prepare before publication.
Mr Justice Nicklin refused the injunction sought by Mr Walliams to prevent publication of the claims – all of which he denies – that he groomed fans he met when they were as young as 15, and harassed women in the workplace for years. The hospital, the judge said, was responsible for Mr Walliams’ immediate safety and could reduce the risk to his life; protecting him did not require suppressing public-interest journalism.
The court has clarified the role of journalism in a democracy. It did not give journalists carte blanche to publish stories without considering the potential consequences. Editors must continually assess the public interest and allow those responsible for a person’s care time to take protective steps. Both duties should be integral to the editorial process, as they were in this case.
But the judgment did provide an endorsement of the importance of public-interest-driven journalism. Had Mr Walliams won the case, he would have silenced the media and all his accusers. The consequences for journalism and society would have been seismic: courts could have been required to stop otherwise lawful reporting because of the danger it posed to its subject. Even if editors and reporters pressed ahead, the prospect of a costly court battle could be enough to keep a story from seeing the light of day.
Having assessed all the medical evidence, Mr Justice Nicklin rejected Mr Walliams’ demand that he be protected under the Human Rights Act’s article 2, which protects the right to life, and article 3, which prohibits torture and inhumane and degrading treatment. His judgment establishes an important legal precedent about why reporting individual cases matters. By “illuminat[ing] the operation of power”, the court reasoned, journalism shows readers how alleged sexual misconduct was practised in ways that a general discussion in public cannot.
The Guardian first exposed Mr Walliams’ inappropriate conduct on the hit TV show Britain’s Got Talent in 2022. He was dropped as a judge after a decade. Last December, HarperCollins dropped him after an investigation into alleged inappropriate behaviour towards young women, and in September the company announced that it would no longer publish any of his works.
The allegations in this latest investigation were put to Mr Walliams in May. He has now been sectioned under the Mental Health Act after two suicide attempts. The welfare of Mr Walliams and his family deserved to be taken seriously. So did the prospect that an injunction would silence the sources who had courageously come forward. If Mr Walliams had won the case, this would have had a chilling effect on responsible investigative journalism – and been a sweeping new restriction on the media.
