Why David Walliams' unprecedented bid to stay anonymous failed in the High Court

On Tuesday, ITV News and the Guardian named David Walliams in reports on allegations against him. The 55-year-old comedian and author had spent weeks trying to stop that from happening, and he had lost in the High Court. In response to the allegations, he said he was not a sexual predator and had not broken the law.

His attempt to keep his name out of the story was never really secret. An application that would normally have been anonymised briefly appeared under his own name on a court cases register. What he was asking for was highly unusual: a permanent injunction that would gag the media indefinitely. The full trial last month made that clear, and it was also where his position weakened.

In court, his lawyers did not argue that the investigation would reveal confidential or private information the journalists had no right to hold. Those are the two routes most often used to silence reporters. Instead, they argued that publication posed such a threat to his life that the court would itself breach his human rights by letting the story go ahead. The court ultimately found that argument to be unheard of.

It rested on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under it, the British state must take reasonable steps to protect life where it can, and where a particular body actually has responsibility to act. The state is not expected to save every life in every circumstance, but it must show it did its best when the duty is clear. The clearest example is the police acting on credible intelligence of a threat to life, even if the person at risk is a gangster.

That duty is also why Walliams lost. Mr Justice Nicklin held that responsibility for protecting him lay with the clinicians and the hospital he had already been taken to. He had been detained for his own protection, so the state was already trying to meet its obligation. The court had not taken responsibility for his psychiatric treatment or safety. Its role was to decide the legal dispute between Walliams and the news organisations.

His lawyers had also suggested a right to private family life might be engaged, but the judge said no evidence supported that. He had to weigh the media's freedom of expression in publishing what was described in court as a detailed investigation in the public interest. If the reporting proved wrong, Walliams could later sue for defamation, as anyone can who believes journalists have wronged them.

The judgment underlines how seriously the court took the risks to him. After the ruling last week, Mr Justice Nicklin asked whether an appeal was planned. Walliams had not been able to give his lawyers instructions. The judge said the court had moved exceptionally quickly to hold the trial and produce its judgment, and that it was slightly concerning that nothing could proceed that day. Sara Mansoori KC, for Walliams, said the case raised novel issues of law based on unusual facts, and that because her client was vulnerable and in hospital she needed more time.

The judge gave Walliams until 16:30 GMT on Monday to set out proper grounds for challenging the decision. No papers were filed, and ITN and the Guardian were free to publish.

Throughout the case, social media was full of people posting Walliams' name and asking why journalists would not do the same. A UK reporting order applies to every form of publication, online or in print, which is why established news organisations held back. The practical problem is how far English law reaches in cyberspace. One judge recently called social media a wild west. A newsroom breaching an order would likely see its editor in court. A single X user passing on gossip is unlikely to. But when thousands repeat the same claims, perhaps magnified by AI summaries and algorithms, the combined impact may exceed one newsroom's breach. Courts have not yet found an answer to that.