UK Comedian David Walliams Accused of Grooming Teens After Court Blocks Injunction

Key points

• The Guardian and ITV News published a three-year investigation alleging Walliams exploited his fame to contact and sexually pursue young women and teenagers, with some accounts describing non-consensual acts or grooming.
• Walliams, 55, denied the allegations, stating he is not a sexual predator and has not broken the law, though he acknowledged behaving thoughtlessly in casual relationships and accepting a power imbalance due to his fame.
• A High Court judge, Matthew Nicklin, rejected Walliams’ injunction request on November 3, ruling that the public interest in the allegations outweighed the risk to his mental health, despite acknowledging a substantial increase in suicide risk.
• Walliams has been dropped by HarperCollins, the Independent Talent Group, and Sky, while the BBC is reviewing and removing his content, including Little Britain, from its platforms.
• Walliams remains in a psychiatric hospital following two suicide attempts after being contacted by the news organizations in May 2026; his lawyers cited his mental health as a reason to block publication, which the court rejected.

Background

Walliams is a prominent UK figure known for the sketch show Little Britain and his role as a judge on Britain’s Got Talent, which he left in 2022 after apologizing for disrespectful comments. He is also a best-selling children’s author with over 60 million copies sold worldwide. In 2025, HarperCollins stopped publishing new books by him following unspecified harassment allegations from a junior staff member, and a 2024 internal inquiry at the publisher resulted in no action against him but a payout to a female employee. Rumors of his behavior have circulated for two decades, including a 2004 joke by Jonathan Ross at the British Comedy Awards that Walliams was 'probably going home with' a 15-year-old, which Ross later called tasteless and regretted.

How outlets are covering it

The Guardian and ITV News emphasized the scale of the investigation, citing over 100 interviews and 30 first-hand accounts, and framed the story as a matter of substantial public interest regarding power imbalances in entertainment. The New York Times highlighted the legal battle, noting the judge’s acknowledgment of Walliams’ psychiatric vulnerability but his decision to prioritize press freedom. AP News focused on the criminal potential of some allegations, noting that some conduct could amount to offenses if proven. Vulture detailed specific workplace incidents, including staff warnings about Walliams inviting young women to his dressing room and a 2017 relationship with an intern. Walliams’ lawyers and his personal letter framed the allegations as hurtful but not illegal, emphasizing his mental health crisis and denial of predatory intent. Jonathan Ross, who made the 2004 joke, expressed horror and claimed he was unaware of the underlying conduct, calling the joke tasteless but not indicative of actual events. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy called the claims part of a long line of power abuses in media, while Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones expressed concern over the use of injunctions to silence allegations.

Why it matters

The case underscores ongoing debates in the UK about press freedom, privacy, and the use of legal injunctions to suppress allegations of misconduct by public figures. It highlights the tension between protecting mental health and ensuring accountability for powerful individuals, with potential implications for future media investigations and safeguarding in entertainment and publishing industries.

What to watch

Walliams may face further legal or professional consequences as his former partners continue to distance themselves from him. The UK government is reviewing the use of injunctions to prevent abuse of process, which could impact how similar cases are handled in the future. The BBC’s review of Walliams’ content may lead to permanent removal of his shows from streaming platforms. No criminal charges have been reported, but the allegations could lead to civil lawsuits or further investigations by regulatory bodies.