Why was David Walliams named?

After a protracted legal battle over the use of an injunction, David Walliams has this afternoon been named by The Guardian and ITN in connection with allegations of grooming, inappropriate behaviour and sexual assault. Walliams, who has recently been sectioned under the Mental Health Act after reportedly making two attempts on his life, denies wrongdoing, saying he is not a sexual predator. This afternoon, Walliams hasn't been arrested. No charges have been made against him by the authorities, but there are some very serious allegations about his behaviour made by two women who say they were just 15 when Walliams first contacted them. One woman known as Jade was contacted by Walliams. It's reported he sent messages to the girl via the social media platform MySpace in 2007 before meeting her in a cafe. It's claimed he invited her back to his London home where he allegedly sexually assaulted her. The woman said he agreed to stop when she told him that she was too young for sex, but then insisted they should keep in touch and meet again when she was 16. Lawyers for Walliams say he never engaged in grooming young women and that he denies having any sexual contact with Jade. They say the allegations of serious criminal conduct are false. Another woman, named by the news outlets as Alex, said she first met Walliams in 2004 when she was 15 and he was 32. She alleges that he groomed her over several years by helping her write comedy scripts, offering to secure her work experience in TV, and sending her tickets to his Little Britain shows. It's reported they had sex for the first time when she was 17. She told the publications, I think I was groomed 100%. Walliam's lawyers said the actor believed she was 18 at the time and that he denies any wrongdoing. Earlier in the Commons, the Minister for Victims, Violence Against Women and Girls, Alex Davis-Jones, said that she was asked about the use of these injunctions. I want to reassure him that this government is determined to do all we can to ensure that anyone who is a perpetrator of these kinds is held to the full... force of the law. That includes looking at what we can do regarding injunctions. He will know that applications for privacy injunctions are considered independently to the courts and it would not be appropriate for the government to comment. However, we are concerned about the use of these and my honourable friend, the Minister for Courts, is looking at what more we can do with slaps, injunctions. He will know we've already taken action on NDAs for sexual abuse cases and what more we can do to prevent abuse of process throughout the judicial system. Alex Davis-Jones speaking in the House of Commons a little earlier. As I say, Williams has not been arrested. charged. Do you believe it's right that he's been named? Steve Konsevich is a media lawyer and partner and head of creative digital marketing at Glaciers ETL. Thank you very much Steve for coming on the program Steve. Just run us through this rather protracted legal battle over this injunction if you would. Good evening, Tom. So cases like this are always balancing acts. And in this particular case, what the court was asked to balance was the press's right to freedom of expression for the public to hear about these allegations, which, of course, Williams denies. But that was balanced against, well, it would normally be balanced against the right to respect for your private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this particular case, it was also balanced against David Walliams' right to life and his protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. So... It's rare to see This may have set new law had it gone a different way. The court looked at whether or not the seriousness of the psychiatric evidence could create a real and immediate risk to life through David Walliams' suicide. And what the court said here was that given that David Walliams was under detention through the Mental Health Act, that essentially it was up to the medical system to deal with that risk as opposed to the courts. So the court said that had this injunction continued indefinitely, that could have had a real chilling effect and led to the press not being able to able to talk about these allegations potentially indefinitely and the fact that the case as a whole was trying to make new law. So the way the court looked at it was to say that the journalism was about serious allegations involving the alleged use of status and influence of a prominent figure and that restraining it going forward would be what it described as an exceptionally serious interference with freedom of expression. So lots of things play a part here. The seriousness of of the allegations. The fame of the man involved, in this case David Walliams of course, his public profile, and to some extent, Steve, the ability of the state, i.e. the hospital that he is in, to manage his health needs, which the judge obviously hasn't dismissed. No, that's entirely right. There was very significant medical evidence in this case. And as I said, what the court decided here was that it wasn't really for them to deal with the issue around his right to life. And ironically, it may well be that because he was detained under the Mental Health Act that the court found he was... Pretty much safer, you know, in a better place. So what the court does in situations like this isn't decide the merits of any underlying claim. It sort of doesn't decide the truth or falsity of the allegations put about David Walliams. It deals with whether or not these issues can be reported upon. And in this particular case, the judge felt that they should. When the police arrest someone... It's normally the case, and the police have been advised to make it the case, that they don't name the person that they've arrested. That happens slightly later on down the line, possibly at the point of charge, but even then there are some question marks over it. We saw in cases like the one around Sir Cliff Richard, where he was named in the press relating to some very serious allegations, which turned out to be completely false, fatuous and sort of nonsensical in a lot of cases. What would you say then to someone who says, Not enough has happened here from the police's point of view to mean that this man should be named. It's important to note that David Walliams isn't accused of a criminal offence. There's no criminal investigation against him. He denies those allegations. It's a very, very different test. And certainly when you're talking about, there is case law that talks about a suspect in a police investigation. And also you've got contempt of court as well. So the two very, very different systems. So what would you have decided had you been the judge in this case? Luckily, I wasn't a judge in this case and there are, I'm not good enough a lawyer, there are, there's a lot of really, really serious issues at the heart of this case. The health and welfare of any number of different people, including David Walliams, but also including the people that dealt with the investigation with ITN and dealt with the investigation with The Guardian. It's a very rare finding and it's a very novel finding and I think I'll just be more interested to see how this plays out going forward. Steve, really appreciate it. Thank you very much indeed for your time. Steve Kinsevich is a media lawyer and partner and head of creative digital marketing at Glaciers ETL. Let me read you the Walliams response, a letter sent I think a few months ago possibly as a result of being contacted by these allegations before the injunction was taken out. Walliams has said, towards me. As I say, at the moment that, you know, there is no arrest, there is no charge, these are very serious allegations made by at least two women, both of whom say that they were just teenagers, and critically below the age of consent in one case, when they met Walliams. These are obviously allegations that he denies. And so the question for the court... It's whether or not the public interest, that is different to the interest of the public, whether the public interest test was met. To name this man, despite the injunction that he had hoped to have over this, that his life was at risk if he were to be named publicly in connection with allegations that he denies, the court said no, because of the seriousness of the allegations, because of the public profile of the individual, and because, in part, his health can be managed by the hospital that he has been sectioned in, the judge has said that he should be named.