David Walliams named as celebrity accused of sexual misconduct after failed injunction bid

Warning: This article contains discussion of allegations of sexual assault which some readers may find distressing.

David Walliams can be named as the 'well-known celebrity' accused of sexually inappropriate behaviour and grooming in a Guardian and ITV News investigation after a failed injunction to prevent the reporting of allegations against him.

Investigations which started in 2022 by The Guardian and ITN have named Walliams as the celebrity who is facing sexual misconduct allegations.

According to the ITV News and Guardian investigation, a number of allegations of sexual misconduct date back to 2003 and include one woman who described an alleged encounter with Walliams when she was 15 as 'sexual assault'. Several other women accused Walliams of 'grooming' them when they were teenagers, according to the report.

The investigation also included an allegation from a woman who said that the TV judge contacted her when she was 15 after meeting at a Little Britain fan event and says they started a sexual relationship at 17.

Another woman in the investgation also alleges that Walliams kissed her when she was 15, and engaged in brief sexual acts before saying she should 'wait until she is 16 and then contact him'.

Walliams has denied the allegations made against him and his lawyers told The Guardian he 'never engaged in grooming young women', denies any sexual contact with the 15-year-old mentioned in the investigation, and that 'allegations of serious criminal conduct are false'.

David Walliams has now been named as the celebrity connected with various allegations after an injunction was lifted (MEGA/GC Images)

ITV have confirmed that a documentary, titled David Walliams: Power and Silence will air tonight at 22:50 on ITV. It is available to watch now on the ITV News YouTube channel and chronicles the three year joint investigation by ITN and The Guardian.

He said in a letter to the media: "Looking back, I realise that at times I behaved thoughtlessly towards other people I had casual sexual relationships with.

“I realise I did not always take people’s feelings properly into account. That is something I regret. And whilst a power imbalance is inevitable when one party is famous, abusing that power is something else entirely and it is something that I never did.

“I am not a sexual predator. I have not broken the law, but I am devastated that some of the women I met 10 to 20 years ago have now expressed hurt or anger towards me.”

David Walliams denies all allegations made against him (David M. Benett/Dave Benett/Getty Images for The Ned)

Last week (3 November) he lost his case to prevent The Guardian and ITN from publishing allegations against him, though a temporary injunction remained in place so his name couldn't be published if he appealed the decision.

A deadline for that appeal had been set for 4.30pm on 9 November, but that date and time passed without an appeal or requests for more time to put something together, as court staff confirmed they hadn't received either.

As such, it cleared the way for the media organisations to report Walliams' name in connection with the allegations levelled against him.

In the High Court case, The Guardian and ITN's lawyers argued that it was in the public interest for them to publish the allegations that Walliams had used his status in attempts to engage in 'inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women', including 'potential criminal activity', which Walliams denies.

While his defence argued that publication would mean he was 'highly likely' to kill himself, Mr Justice Nicklin said that such claims should be taken seriously, but they don't 'establish that suicide is inevitable or that treatment cannot reduce the risk'.

His defence team have not appealed last week's decision so The Guardian and ITN are clear to publish his name (Shane Anthony Sinclair/Getty Images)

The judge said that granting the injunction would be an 'exceptionally serious interference' to the media going ahead with the 'results of their investigations into allegations of serious wrongdoing by a prominent individual'.

He also noted that Walliams has been detained under the Mental Health Act, meaning there is 'significant protection' against the potential of suicide and the state has 'assumed responsibility' for his immediate condition.

Since there are hospitals and health staff looking after him, the judge explained that this 'materially reduces the likelihood of suicide'.

Further, Mr Justice Nicklin said that granting Walliams an injunction wouldn't remove the risk of suicide or deal with a psychiatric condition.

“The evidence does not identify a point at which publication would become safe merely through the passage of time," the judge ruled.

“The relief sought would therefore be of uncertain and potentially indefinite duration.”

If you have been affected by any of the issues in this article and wish to speak to someone in confidence, contact The Survivors Trust for free on 08088 010 818, available 10am-12.30pm, 1.30pm-3pm and 6pm-8pm Monday to Thursday, 10am-12.30pm and 1.30pm-3pm on Fridays, 10am-12.30pm on Saturdays and 6pm-8pm on Sundays.