David Walliams' unprecedented legal battle to remain anonymous in relation to allegations against him has failed after he sought a permanent injunction. The comedian and author was named by The Guardian and ITN after a court ruled he had no sound legal basis to prevent the news organizations' investigation from being published.

Walliams, 55, had attempted to secure a permanent gag order on the media, a move that was an open secret from its inception when an anonymised application briefly appeared under his own name on a court cases register. His exceptionally unusual attempt to silence the media permanently became clear at the full trial last month, at which point his bid to remain anonymous worsened.

In court, Walliams' lawyers did not argue that the investigation would disclose legally confidential or private information that journalists were not entitled to. Instead, they contended that the threat to his life from publication was so severe that the court would be breaching his human rights by allowing the story to proceed. The court ultimately concluded this argument was unheard of.

The High Court's Mr Justice Nicklin stated that the responsibility to protect the comedian and author's life rested with clinicians and the hospital where he had already been taken for his own protection. This meant the state was already attempting to fulfill its obligation to protect him from harm. The court's role, the judge explained, was to resolve the legal dispute between Walliams and the news organizations, not to provide personal protection.

Walliams' legal team had suggested a potential issue concerning the right to private and family life. However, the judge found no evidence to support this claim. He emphasized the need to consider the media's right to freedom of speech, particularly concerning a detailed investigation described in court as being in the public interest. If the media's claims were found to be inaccurate, Walliams would retain the option to sue for defamation, the standard legal recourse for parties wronged by journalistic reporting.

In response to the allegations included in the investigations, Walliams has stated that he is not a sexual predator and has not broken the law. The legal proceedings highlight the tension between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know, especially when the subject is a public figure.

The court's decision underscores the high legal threshold required to grant permanent injunctions against media reporting, particularly when the alleged threat to life is not directly linked to the state's operational responsibilities or the specific legal dispute before the court.

This case sets a precedent regarding the application of human rights law in attempts to prevent media publication, emphasizing that the court's duty to protect life must be balanced against freedom of expression and the specific responsibilities of relevant authorities.