The New York Times, on UK Politics, 14 November 2026

0.0out of 10Nothing found

Two Celebrity Cases Put a Spotlight on British Courts’ Gag Orders

No framing issues found.

Two recent cases have brought new attention to the ways that British laws can allow the wealthy and powerful to silence their critics. The first was the rape and sexual assault trial of the comedian Russell Brand. Before his conviction last week, Mr. Brand had obtained an injunction prohibiting another accuser from telling almost anyone — including the police, her family and most doctors — about her claims that he assaulted her. (Mr. Brand has denied her allegations.)

That injunction, first revealed by Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer and free-expression activist, apparently remains in force. In the second instance, two British news organizations were temporarily blocked from reporting allegations of sexual misconduct against David Walliams, a television personality and author of children’s books, before a judge declined to make the injunction permanent. The Guardian newspaper and ITV News, a British broadcaster, published investigations last week into the allegations, which Mr. Walliams denies.

Though both men now face public scrutiny, the revelations of how they used court injunctions — essentially gag orders — to protect their reputations have provoked no shortage of public and political outrage. Judges in other cases have issued “super injunctions,” which prohibit publishing any information even about the injunction itself. “What will the government do to prevent these abuses of process, and stop the abusive injunctions and super injunctions which stop scrutiny, accountability and the work of the free press?”

Nick Timothy, the shadow justice minister, asked in Parliament on Tuesday. The British government is now “looking at what we can do,” Alex Davies-Jones, the government minister responsible for victims of crime and violence against women and girls, said in response. We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in . Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Read the original article on nytimes.com (opens in a new tab)
About this analysis

The New York Times reports that court injunctions used by Russell Brand, convicted last week after a rape and sexual assault trial, and by David Walliams have renewed attention on British gag orders, with a shadow minister's question in Parliament and the government's reply. It attributes the allegations, records Brand's denial of a further accuser's claims and Walliams's denial, and names its sources. The text supplied is cut off after the opening section, and nothing in what remains misleads the reader.

What it gets right

  • “which Mr. Walliams denies”

    The Times reports the allegations against Walliams as allegations and gives his denial in the same sentence, so the reader does not take them as proven.

  • “first revealed by Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer and free-expression activist”

    The Times names who first revealed the Brand injunction and describes his background, so the reader can judge the source.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The New York Times

  1. 4 NovU.K. Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Ban on Palestine Action: What to Know0.0
  2. 31 OctBritain’s Prime Minister Says He’s Open to a Formal Apology for Slavery0.0
  3. 28 OctHow to Tax and Spend in a ‘Turbulent Time?’ U.K. Tries a Balancing Act.0.0
  4. 21 OctBritain Approves New Gas Drilling in the North Sea0.0
  5. 20 OctThe British Police Rearrest Two in Connection With Alleged Terror Plot3.0

Everything we scored from The New York Times