A high court attempt by David Walliams to stop the Guardian and ITN from publishing allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour was unprecedented. Here are the key issues surrounding the case.
What was the case about?
Walliams, referred to in court as PPT and described as a “well-known individual”, attempted to secure a permanent injunction to stop the Guardian and ITN from publishing allegations about him. The outlets said they had more than 30 sources with first-hand accounts.
The news outlets claimed the information they intended to publish concerned numerous allegations that Walliams had abused his status over many years “in order to engage in, and/or attempt to engage in”, inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities with a large number of young women.
They said they believed some of the allegations were sufficiently serious to justify a criminal investigation. Walliams denies the allegations.
READ MORE
Why was this case important?
There is nothing new about a celebrity attempting to secure an injunction to stop a media story. However, those attempts usually rest on legal claims of the misuse of private information, harassment or breach of confidence.
What made this case different was the claim from Walliams’ legal team that publishing the allegations was “highly likely” to lead to an attempt to take his own life.
They argued that only the court could protect Walliams’ rights under articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 2 relates to the right to life. Article 3 relates to “inhuman or degrading treatment”.
The court was not ruling on whether or not the allegations were true.
What about the rights of the media to publish?
Walliams’ legal team also said the court had to protect his rights under article 8, which relates to respect for private and family life. His lawyers argued his relationship with his son would be “lost or seriously damaged” should the allegations be published.
The judge had to balance this right against the media’s right to freedom of expression, protected under article 10 of the ECHR.
What were Walliams’ arguments?
Sara Mansoori, Walliams’ lead barrister, said the celebrity made an attempt on his own life first in May, after he had been contacted about the allegations, and again in July. Mansoori argued that only the court was in a position to protect Walliams from what she said was the driver of his suicide attempts – publication of the allegations.
His legal team pointed to the case of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who murdered James Bulger in 1993. In 2001, the courts granted them lifetime injunctions preventing publication of their new identities because of the risk of violence they would face from others.
How did the Guardian and ITN respond?
Gavin Millar, the lead barrister for the media groups, argued that the European Court of Human Rights, which oversees the ECHR, had never recognised a court’s duty to protect a claimant from the risk of self-harm by stopping a media outlet from publishing a story. Millar said granting such an injunction would represent a “radical and unprincipled expansion” of the courts’ duties.
He said insofar as the state had a duty to protect Walliams’ rights, it fell to the NHS and its mental health services.
The media groups’ legal team argued that the right to freedom of expression for the outlets and their sources outweighed Walliams’ right to a private and family life.
How was Walliams’ condition assessed?
Both sides of the case agreed on a “single joint expert” to assess his condition. The medical expert provided three reports from the end of September to the end of October.
He found that Walliams had “a genuine and serious underlying psychiatric vulnerability and an elevated baseline risk of suicide”.
He found that the period up to and including a court decision permitting publication, anticipation of publication and publication itself would be associated with “a very substantial increase in the risk of psychiatric deterioration, suicidal ideation and suicidal acts”.
Ultimately, his assessment found: “The expert does not conclude either that suicide is inevitable if publication occurs or that psychiatric treatment can eliminate all risk.”
What were the judge’s findings?
The judge concluded that the risk of Walliams attempting to take his own life was “genuine, grave and closely connected to the court’s decision and any subsequent publication”. However, he said this finding was “necessary but not sufficient” and refused to grant the injunction.
He concluded that the state had assumed responsibility for Walliams’ immediate safety not through the courts but through NHS psychiatric hospitals and mental health services. He said the state was not obliged “to guarantee that suicide will not occur or to eliminate every residual risk”.
He did not accept that the injunction request was an “insubstantial extension” of the Venables case, saying it would hand the court responsibilities already being overseen by the NHS.
The judge had pointed to the wide-ranging implications of granting the injunction during the trial. “The consequences are profound,” he said. “The individual says ‘I am going to commit suicide if this happens’. The ‘this’ can be almost anything.”
What did the judge rule on press freedom?
The judge balanced Walliams’ right to a private and family life against the freedom of expression of the media groups and their sources. The judge accepted publication would have an “exceptionally grave” impact on Walliams’ private and family life, giving his argument “very substantial weight”.
However, ruling in favour of freedom of expression, he pointed to the “substantial” rights of the sources of the allegations to communicate their experiences and the right of the public to “receive information and ideas on matters of public interest”. He said the allegations could make “a significant contribution to public debate”.
“The journalism concerns matters of substantial public interest,” the judge said. “The restraint sought would be comprehensive and potentially indefinite.”
Could the decision be appealed against?
The judge granted Walliams the right to appeal, keeping his anonymity in place as a result. He was given until 4.30pm on Monday to submit an appeal, which he did not do. - Guardian
Useful contacts
- Text About It by Spunout – Text HELLO to 50808
- Samaritans – samaritans.org – 116 123 – jo@samaritans.ie
- Pieta – pieta.ie – 1800 247 247, or text HELP to 51444
- Aware – aware.ie – 1800 80 48 48
- Dublin Rape Crisis Centre – 1800 77 8888, drcc.ie
