A second unnamed male celebrity in the public eye currently holds a legal injunction blocking public allegations of sexual misconduct against him, despite ongoing legal scrutiny.
Journalist Justine Smith revealed the existence of the second injunction on the Private Eye Podcast, stating that the man has multiple victims.
This follows failed legal attempts by David Walliams to block an investigation into misconduct claims, and comes as legal experts examine the strict limits of privacy orders.
Two Men Face Reporting Restrictions and Injunctions
Smith stated on the Private Eye Podcast that two men have faced reporting restrictions, noting that the second individual obtained an injunction several months prior to recent legal challenges.
“There are two men at the moment who can’t be named. One for the most recent proceedings, and then one from several months back. Both of them have injunctions against reporting anything. Both of them multiple, multiple victims. Both of them in the public eye,” Smith said on the podcast, according to Express.co.uk.
Smith also said that she spoke to an alleged victim who was prepared to speak publicly, but the injunction prevented publication. Walliams subsequently faced public identification after Mr Justice Nicklin rejected his bid for an anonymity order.
Circumventing Legal Injunctions
While the court order remains active in England and Wales, legal precedent shows that privacy injunctions can be bypassed under specific circumstances. LADbible reported that Members of Parliament possess absolute privilege to speak in the House of Commons without facing libel action or court penalties.
“MPs have freedom of speech when in the Chamber. This right goes back to the 17th century and is absolute,” James Howarth, reputation and privacy partner at Howes Percival, told LADbible.
A similar situation occurred in 2011 when former footballer Ryan Giggs was named in Parliament by MP John Hemming. That naming happened after Giggs’ identity circulated widely on social media despite a privacy injunction.
Howarth also explained the territorial limitations of English and Welsh court orders regarding international publications. “Injunctions are territorial in nature. The court in England & Wales cannot bind a court in another country and the party seeking the injunction would need to make an application in that country,” he told LADbible.
Publications based outside England and Wales are not automatically bound by domestic privacy injunctions. However, Howarth said that international media organizations with operations inside England and Wales still face legal complications.
Pending Legal Status
The identity of the second male celebrity remains protected by the High Court injunction as legal discussions continue across media outlets. Walliams has denied all criminal acts and allegations of sexual misconduct, stating that he never abused any power associated with his fame.
As privacy law intersects with digital dissemination and parliamentary privilege, the enforceability of such injunctions continues to face intense public and legal debate.
