Second High-Profile Celebrity Reportedly Granted Injunction Amid 'Multiple Victims' Claims as David Walliams Loses Legal Fight

A second high-profile male celebrity is reportedly protected by an injunction restricting reporting about him, according to journalist Justine Smith, who said the cases she discussed involved 'multiple, multiple victims'. Her comments emerged alongside David Walliams's unsuccessful application for a permanent injunction to prevent publication of sexual misconduct allegations, which he denies.

Smith said an alleged victim in one of the cases was prepared to speak publicly and be named, but her account remained unpublished. She did not specify which case involved the woman, so her allegations cannot be attributed to the second celebrity.

Smith discussed two separate cases on The Private Eye Podcast before Walliams was publicly identified. One concerned the more recent proceedings involving Walliams, whose application for a permanent injunction was subsequently dismissed. The other concerned a separate, earlier case involving an unnamed male public figure. Smith did not identify either individual in the podcast.

'Multiple Victims' Claim Remains an Allegation

Smith continued: 'Both of them, there are injunctions on reporting anything. Both of them multiple, multiple victims. Both of them in the public eye.' Her description is an allegation, not a verified victim count or a judicial finding of wrongdoing.

The published account presents her comments as concerning another celebrity following Walliams's unsuccessful application, although the reproduced quotations identify neither man. It does not disclose the second order's date, the court that issued it or its precise restrictions.

Woman Was Prepared to Speak Publicly

Smith also described the effect of the restrictions on a woman she had spoken to personally. The woman was prepared to give her account publicly under her own name, but Smith said that willingness had not made publication possible.

'I've spoken to one of the alleged victims in one of them, she's prepared to speak publicly and be named, but we still can't publish that,' Smith said. She did not describe the woman's allegations in the quoted remarks or identify the particular restriction preventing publication.

Why David Walliams Lost His Application

Walliams sought a permanent injunction against Independent Television News and Guardian News and Media, arguing that publication posed a serious risk to his life. His lawyers relied on Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and evidence concerning his psychiatric vulnerability.

Mr Justice Nicklin took that risk seriously but said it did not establish that suicide was inevitable. He considered that healthcare services could provide significant protection following Walliams's detention under the Mental Health Act.

Court Weighed Safety Against Free Speech

The judge said the state had assumed responsibility for Walliams's immediate safety and that healthcare protection materially reduced the likelihood of suicide. He also concluded that an injunction would impose 'an exceptionally serious restriction upon freedom of expression'.

The ruling did not determine whether the allegations were true, and Walliams initially remained anonymous while considering an appeal. His lawyers subsequently confirmed that he would not appeal, clearing the way for publication of the investigation and his identity.

Walliams Denies the Allegations

The investigation reported allegations from multiple women, including claims of grooming when they were teenagers and one woman's allegation of sexual assault when she was 15. Walliams denies all allegations, including any criminal activity.

His barrister argued that the publication risk arose from longstanding trauma and fear of trial by media, not because the allegations were true. Lawyers representing the publishers argued that their investigation raised matters of strong public interest.

Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones told the Commons that the Government was examining what further action it could take regarding injunctions, but did not announce any specific legal changes. The reporting about the second celebrity does not include his response or establish his position on the allegations described by Smith.