How a Second Male Celebrity Could Still Be Named Despite an Injunction Blocking Public Allegations

Celebrity Injunction Could Still Be Circumvented

A high-profile male celebrity whose identity is protected by a legal injunction could still be publicly named, despite the court order blocking publication of serious allegations against him.

The existence of the injunction was disclosed earlier this week after it emerged that David Walliams had unsuccessfully sought an injunction to stop The Guardian and ITN investigating claims of sexual misconduct. A second high-profile male celebrity was also reported to have successfully obtained an injunction preventing his identity from being published.

Journalist Justine Smith discussed the case on the Private Eye Podcast and alleged that the unnamed celebrity had “multiple, multiple victims”. The injunction prompted significant criticism on social media, with many people questioning how the individual could remain anonymous while the allegations were being discussed publicly.

How Parliament Could Override the Injunction

One potential route would involve a Member of Parliament naming the celebrity in the House of Commons. MPs have special legal protection when speaking in Parliament, meaning that statements made in the Chamber can be protected by absolute privilege.

The same principle was used in 2011, when former Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs was named in Parliament despite an injunction preventing publication of allegations about an affair with reality television star Imogen Thomas.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming identified Giggs as the person behind the injunction while criticising the impracticality of enforcing the order. Giggs had already been named around 75,000 times on X, then known as Twitter, and Hemming pointed out that “you could not imprison 75,000 people” for doing so.

Speaking exclusively to LADbible, James Howarth, reputation and privacy partner at Howes Percival, said: “MPs have freedom of speech when in the Chamber. This right goes back to the 17th century and is absolute.”

This “absolute privilege” prevents MPs from being bound by court orders when speaking in Parliament and provides a complete defence against libel claims arising from statements made in the Chamber. Legislation dating from 1689 states that MPs have “absolute freedom of speech” and cannot be questioned or impeached by any court over remarks made in Parliament.

John Hemming was criticised by then-Speaker John Bercow and other MPs after naming Ryan Giggs, but he faced no legal consequences. If an MP knew the identity of the celebrity protected by the current injunction and chose to disclose it in Parliament, the name could consequently become public.

Could an Overseas Publication Name the Celebrity?

A second possibility is for a publication outside England and Wales to publish the celebrity’s identity. This approach was also relevant in the Ryan Giggs case, when a Scottish newspaper identified him before the name was disclosed through legal proceedings.

Injunctions generally apply within the jurisdiction that issued them. James Howarth told LADbible: “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 added: “However, there are reasons (such as a media organisation also having operations within the area covered by the injunction) which means that they can be practically effective.”

As a result, a Scottish or American newspaper could theoretically publish the allegations if the injunction had not been obtained in that jurisdiction. However, the position could become legally complicated if the publication also has offices, staff or other operations in England and Wales.

Why This Matters

The case highlights the limits of privacy injunctions in an interconnected media environment. Although an order issued in England and Wales can restrict reporting within that jurisdiction, parliamentary privilege and publications operating elsewhere may create routes through which a protected identity becomes public.

The Ryan Giggs case shows that an injunction can become difficult to enforce once a name has been widely circulated. However, the legal risks remain significant for media organisations and individuals, particularly where they have a presence in the jurisdiction covered by the order. The current celebrity’s identity may remain undisclosed, but the available legal routes mean that publication is not impossible.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is the celebrity’s identity being kept secret?

A legal injunction is preventing publications in England and Wales from identifying the high-profile male celebrity in connection with serious allegations. The source does not identify the celebrity or provide the full details of the allegations.

Can an MP name the celebrity in Parliament?

MPs have absolute privilege when speaking in Parliament. This protection means they cannot generally be sued or prosecuted for statements made in the Chamber, although naming an individual could still attract political criticism, as happened when John Hemming identified Ryan Giggs in 2011.

Can a newspaper outside England and Wales publish the name?

Potentially. Injunctions are territorial, so an English or Welsh court cannot automatically bind a court in another country. However, publication may still carry practical and legal risks if the media organisation operates within England and Wales.