trial

Series 2 of I’m A Celeb All Stars launches tonight and a sneak peek into the first episode shows TV comic Seann Walsh face his fear of heights in a grueling trial with Sinitta

Seann Walsh’s face is a petrified picture as he takes on the first challenge of the 2026 I’m A Celeb All Stars

The TV comic, who was a campmate on the 2023 show, has returned to the jungle for an All Stars stint – and made an unlikely pairing with 80s pop sensation Sinitta in a terrifying new trial. In a clip Sean can be seen screaming as he was forced to race the So Macho hitmaker across a bridge – but in true I’m a Celeb style it was 150ft in the air.

The two have to jump across a series of wooden platforms to cross a ravine. At one point, Seann is seen strapped into a wooden barrel as he takes on the trial. Butbefore his height-defying bridge cross with Sinitta, Seann is seen in a helicopter looking a little on the green side. Speaking about the trial Seann told The Sun: “It was terrifying. But the first time I went in with Matt Hancock, so it wasn’t as scary as that.”

READ MORE: Piers Morgan hits out at Donald Trump with brutal ‘lost your marbles’ commentREAD MORE: Keir Starmer blasts Kanye West Wireless Festival booking as ‘deeply concerning’

The full cast-list

The 2026 edition of I’m A Celeb All Stars was filmed in September 2025 at Kruger National Park in South Africa. The cast features:

• David Haye
• Gemma Collins
• Seann Walsh
• Harry Redknapp:
• Scarlett Moffatt
• Adam Thomas
• Sir Mo Farah
• Ashley Roberts
• Sinitta
• Craig Charles
• Jimmy Bullard
• Beverley Callard

ITV has said that viewers can expect a “fresh group” of returning campmates from previous series of I’m A Celebrity and “spectacular” locations in South Africa. The broadcaster has also teased that it will include “some of the most epic and extreme trials” in the franchise’s history.

The new series will also see a change to the format of I’m A Celebrity … South Africa. It’s been revealed that, after the first series didn’t feature a public vote, viewers will have the power to decide who wins the second series.

ITV has shared that the public will get to vote in a live final broadcast from the UK. It said: “After weeks of shocks, showdown and survival, viewers will be able to have their say and cast the final vote in a live grand final broadcast direct from London.”

The show’s hosts have expressed excitement over its return. Ant said: “The campmates really brought their A-game to the first series so we can’t wait to be back for more trials, challenges and surprises amongst the beautiful South African landscape.”Whilst co-host Dec described the format change as “exciting”. He said: “Having a live final is an exciting addition to the new series with the viewers choosing their IAC Legend and we’ve heard some of the new trials are truly epic, even by I’m A Celeb… standards!”

Series 2 of I’m A Celeb All Stars launches tonight, at 9pm on ITV1 and ITVX. It will air every weeknight for three weeks, with the live grand final falling on Friday, April 24.

Like this s tory? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

BLAKE Lively has broken her silence after a judge threw out most of her claims against Justin Baldoni.

Ten of the 13 claims Lively, 38, filed against Baldoni, 42, were thrown out on Thursday, April 2, by a judge.

The claims relating to harassment, defamation and conspiracy follow conflict while the pair filmed the 2024 Colleen Hoover adaptation It Ends With Us.

The remaining claims against Baldoni’s company Wayfarer Studios, which include breach of contract and retaliation, will move forward to trial.

“This case has always been and will remain focused on the devasting [sic] retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively’s reputation because she stood up for safety on the set and that is the case that is going to trial,” said Sigrid McCawley, member of Lively’s legal team, told PEOPLE.

“For Blake Lively, the greatest measure of justice is that the people and the playbook behind these coordinated digital attacks have been exposed and are already being held accountable by other women they’ve targeted.

“She looks forward to testifying at trial and continuing to shine a light on this vicious form of online retaliation so that it becomes easier to detect and fight.”

District Judge Lewis Liman said Lively sued under California law but the alleged wrongful conduct took place elsewhere.

He also cited other issues in the cases, such as the fact that Lively had not signed an agreement that would have governed sexual harassment on set.

The judge said the actress could pursue her retaliation claims, among others, against Baldoni’s studio.

“Sexual harassment isn’t going forward not because the defendants did nothing wrong but because the court determined Blake Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee, said McCawley.

Justin Baldoni responds to judge throwing out case

“We’re very pleased the Court dismissed all sexual harassment claims and every claim brought against the individual defendants: Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel,” said Baldoni’s attorneys, Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach to The Daily Mail.

“These were very serious allegations, and we are grateful to the Court for its careful review of the facts, law and voluminous evidence that was provided.

“What’s left is a significantly narrowed case, and we look forward to presenting our defense to the remaining claims in court.”

Lively claimed that Baldoni kissed her during a scene where the script didn’t call for it and said he entered her trailer while she breastfed.

The actress also claimed that Baldoni tried to harm her reputation after she asserted he had created a problematic work environment.

Baldoni claimed Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, tried to tarnish his reputation, engaged in extortion, and hijacked creative control of the romance film.

Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake was dismissed by a judge in November.

The pair will now appear in court on May 18 in New York.

Legal representatives for both have said Baldoni and Lively both plan to testify.

BLAKE Lively’s sexual harassment lawsuit against Justin Baldoni has been dismissed, just weeks before going to trial.

The actress alleged that her It Ends with Us co-star and director, Justin, engaged in inappropriate conduct during filming.

On Thursday, a judge threw out her sexual harassment claims, according to TMZ, which broke the story.

However, Blake’s numerous other allegations, including retaliation, will go to trial next month.

The Gossip Girl alum claimed that Justin attempted to harm her reputation after she asserted he had created a problematic work environment.

Meanwhile, Justin alleged that Blake and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, tried to tarnish his reputation, engaged in extortion, and hijacked creative control of the romance film.

Read More on Blake Lively

WEDDING FEARS

Travis ‘stressed’ Taylor wedding may be CANCELED if dragged into Blake trial

He initially filed a $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake, though that was dismissed by a judge in November.

Blake and Justin are set to appear in court on May 18.

The legal dispute has also involved Blake’s BFF, Taylor Swift, and is reported to have caused tension between the two.

In January, The U.S. Sun exclusively revealed that Taylor’s upcoming wedding to NFL star Travis Kelce could be impacted by Blake’s ongoing court battle with Justin.

Shocking personal texts between Taylor and Blake discussing Blake’s challenges with Justin were unsealed in the lawsuit.

According to TMZ, the singer could be called as a hostile witness for the defense in court, which is scheduled to take place shortly before her fairytale wedding to Travis.

The U.S. Sun exclusively revealed that Travis has urged Taylor to distance herself from the situation and to set firm boundaries.

Blake and Justin’s feud began when they started filming It Ends with Us in May 2023, in which they played love interests.

The movie premiered in August 2024, and Blake made her complaint about Justin’s behavior shortly after.

At the time of publishing, neither Blake nor Justin has commented on the dismissal.

Last week, Blake shared an Instagram post about her “emotional roller coaster” after traveling to Wales to watch Wrexham AFC play.

Her husband, Ryan, has co-owned the team with fellow actor Rob McElhenney since 2021.

Blake posted a slideshow of photos of her smiling at various locations during the trip.

COMIC Russell Brand’s rape trial has been delayed by four months and is expected to last eight weeks — up from five — due to “numerous” and expanded charges.

The screen star, 50, faces three counts of rape, three of sexual assault and one indecent assault against six women from 1999 to 2009.

Brand — who denies all the charges in full — was facing trial at Southwark crown court on June 12.

But Mr Justice Joel Bennathan KC put it back until October 12.

He noted an eight-week trial in June would run into August — with potential summer holiday and travel interruptions.

Brand, of Hambleden, Bucks, didn’t attend court today.

read more on russell brand

STAR IN DOCK

Russell Brand has bible confiscated as he denies fresh offences including rape

BRAND TRIAL

Russell Brand to face court in US over ‘sexual assault’ allegations

Brand had appeared in court last month and denied charges of rape and sexual assault against two women in 2009.

Before the hearing, Brand took out a copy of the bible and began reading it but it was confiscated by the dock officer until the case was done.

The Met Police launched a probe into the TV presenter in September 2023 after The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches published an investigation into allegations over his treatment of women.

Following the charge, Brand told his 11.3million X followers that he was “never a rapist”.

He added: “I’ve always told you guys that when I was young and single, before I had a wife and family… I was a fool, man.

“I was a fool before I lived in the light of the Lord… I have never engaged in non consensual activity, I pray you can see that by looking in my eyes.”

Brand, who was previously married to pop star Katy Perry, shares three children with his wife, Laura Gallacher, 37.

March 30 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Monday denied an appeal from Joe Exotic, the former Tiger King star who is serving time for trying to have an animal rights activist killed.

The court declined to consider tossing the 2019 conviction of Joe Exotic for a murder-for-hire plot to kill animal rights activist Carole Baskin. Joe Exotic, whose real name is Joseph Maldonado-Passage, is serving 21 years for the plot. He was also convicted of falsifying wildlife records and violating the Endangered Species Act.

Baskin was also part of the Tiger King series. She founded Florida rescue center Big Cat Rescue and was an advocate of the Big Cat Public Safety Act, which limited owning big cats and cross-breeds to wildlife sanctuaries, state universities and certified zoos. Former President Joe Biden signed the law in 2022.

Maldonado-Passage’s lawyer, Alexander Roots, told the court that the case arose out of an “intense personal, litigation, operational, and even political, rivalry between two of America’s two largest big cat exhibitors,” The Hill reported.

“By denying any hearing and by refusing to evaluate the evidence as a whole, the lower courts departed from principles that safeguard every criminal prosecution in the nation,” he wrote in the petition to the court.

At the trial in 2019, prosecutors said Maldonado-Passage, 63, hired two men to kill Baskin, one of whom was an FBI agent. They also said he shot and killed five tigers in October 2017 and sold and offered to sell tiger cubs.

Maldonado-Passage has asked President Donald Trump for a pardon. He also asked Biden while he was in office.

In his feud with Baskin, Maldonado-Passage alleged without evidence that she killed her second husband, who disappeared in 1997, and he rebranded his traveling show Big Cat Rescue Entertainment, for which she sued him for trademark infringement. He settled with her for $1 million.

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Maldonado-Passage argued that the lower courts “shrugged off” evidence that three witnesses had recanted their trial testimony, including Allen Glover, a zoo employee and the other hired hitman, and Florida businessman James Garretson.

He also alleged federal prosecutors failed to tell the defense that the witnesses were promised immunity for testifying.

But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the new evidence wasn’t likely to change the trial’s result.

In July, Bhagavan “Doc” Antle, 65, another Tiger King alum, was sentenced to federal prison for crimes related to trafficking exotic animals. He was given 12 months and one day, plus a $55,000 fine and three years of supervised release for violating the Lacey Act, which bans the sale of illegally acquired wildlife, fish or plants, including those designated as protected species by the federal government.

A Los Angeles jury has found Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $6 million in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit. The case involved a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to the apps at a young age due to their platform design. Meta says it plans to appeal the decision.

Afroman testified Tuesday in a civil lawsuit brought by seven members of an Ohio sheriff’s office who allege he used their likenesses without permission in music videos and on merchandise and spread lies about them after they raided his home in August 2022.

The fault, the “Because I Got High” rapper maintained, was not his. On Wednesday, the jury was deliberating the case.

The 51-year-old, whose real name is Joseph Edgar Foreman, said on the stand Tuesday that he was in the right, according to local station WCPO Channel 9 in Cincinnati.

“The whole raid was a mistake. All of this is their fault,” Foreman testified, taking the stand wearing sunglasses with American flag lenses and a red, white and blue suit and matching tie made of fabric recalling the American flag. “If they hadn’t wrongly raided my house, there would be no lawsuit, I would not know their names, they wouldn’t be on my home surveillance system, and there would be no songs, nothing.”

Officers were acting in 2022 on a warrant showing probable cause that drugs and drug paraphernalia would be found on the property. The warrant also alleged that trafficking and kidnapping had happened there. No evidence of a crime was found, and no charges were filed. Foreman wasn’t home during the raid but was able to see at least part of it via a video recorded by his ex-wife and footage captured on his home security system before law enforcement turned off those cameras.

It was that footage that was used in the various videos the rapper subsequently posted, including a music video for the song “Lemon Pound Cake,” which he wrote about the raid.

Officers tore down his door, he said, and damaged his house, taking money, vape pens and a small amount of marijuana. There was a discrepancy about the amount of money taken and returned to the rapper, which seemed to be a point of contention linked to whether he was misrepresenting what the deputies did during the raid.

“After they left, I had the right to kick the can and to do what I had to do to repair the damage they brought to my house. Yes, I did,” Foreman said. “I have freedom of speech. I’m a rapper. I entertain.”

His testimony came on the second day of the trial, after the deputies took the stand the first day and testified that though the raid wasn’t perfect, Foreman had been spreading lies about them for years since it occurred. Deputy Lisa Phillips, whose gender identity had been called into question in Foreman’s videos and social media posts, cried on the stand as some of those videos were played for the court.

Footage with a song called “Licc’em Low Lisa” showed Foreman saying he thought he would “crack some musical jokes” in the wake of the raid, then going to comfort a crying actor who resembled Phillips. “I didn’t know they hurt you that bad. … I was just having fun with a bad situation.” The same video showed the actor engaging in sexual activity with another woman.

In their lawsuit, WCPO said, the deputies said the posts and videos caused them “humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment and loss of reputation” and made it difficult to do their law enforcement work.

In an amicus brief, however, the ACLU argued that the deputies’ lawsuit was a “classic entry into the SLAPP suit genre,” referring to a type of lawsuit that seeks to discourage criticism of public officials.

Live Nation, the ticketing giant that reached a tentative settlement with the Department of Justice last week, remains under fire.

A coalition of more than 30 states that had joined the original lawsuit filed in 2024 is refusing to accept the $200-million settlement, causing the trial to resume this week in Manhattan’s Federal Court.

The settlement with the Justice Department requires Beverly Hills-based Live Nation to open Ticketmaster to rival ticket sellers, force the company to open select venues to competing promoters and cap service fees at 15%. California is one of the key states still involved in the trial.

But those steps fall short, critics say.

“It’s clear that Live Nation has manipulated the market and made itself untouchable by competitors, hurting artists, hurting fans, hurting venues, all the while, raking in the cash,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta at the Capitol Forum conference last week. “Not because it’s a better service or product, because it acted illegally and created a monopoly.”

U.S. senators have also chimed in. Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar recently introduced the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act to strengthen the review of antitrust settlements. Klobuchar said in a release that it’s “clear the American people got the raw end of the deal.”

And Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal released a report that provides new details into the inner workings of Ticketmaster and urges attorneys general across the nation to reject the settlement.

Blumenthal said that the Trump administration’s settlement with Live Nation will keep consumers vulnerable to Ticketmaster’s “anticompetitive practices” and ultimately push “concert tickets farther out of reach for fans.”

The senator’s report, entitled “So Casually Cruel: How Ticketmaster’s Monopoly Supercharges Prices and Fees,” examined over 100,000 documents and Ticketmaster’s revenue data. The report argues that the company leveraged its market control to make tickets available on the resale market before they were available to the general public in an effort to hike prices and boost profits.

“The ticketing market is broken,” Blumenthal said in a statement.

In its own statement, Ticketmaster said Blumenthal’s report “misrepresents how the live events industry works” and that the problem lies in the secondary ticketing industry.

“This is why we’ve long called for industry resale reform, including price caps, while also developing tools to empower artists and protect fans,” Ticketmaster said in a statement.

Recently, Ticketmaster has backed ticketing bills like AB-1349 and advocated to Congress for an industry-wide resale cap.

Sens. Blumenthal and Klobuchar are among many industry experts who say the settlement doesn’t adequately address anticompetitive practices and falls short of protecting consumers from high ticket prices.

Under Klobuchar’s new bill, courts could have 90 days to review public comments and government responses.

“When the government prosecutes antitrust violations, the goal should be to uphold the law, lower prices, and protect consumers and small businesses,” Klobuchar said in the statement.

Lindsay Owens, the executive director of the economic policy nonprofit Groundwork Collaborative, said the settlement will end up being “incredibly costly for concertgoers, performers, and independent venues.”

“California and 35 other states are standing up for Americans who are sick and tired of being ripped off and having to scrimp and save to enjoy a night out,” Owens said in a statement.

This ongoing trial is one of several major legal battles the ticketing giant is facing. The company is also being sued by the Federal Trade Commission and is dealing with a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

A group of California trial lawyers is backing a package of bills aimed at policing their industry by ramping up the penalties for attorneys who recruit clients illegally or prioritize the desires of hedge fund investors.

The Consumer Attorneys of California, a prominent trade group, said it is supporting two bills this session meant to crack down on the “small number of bad actors engaged in illegal conduct that threatens to undermine public trust” in the state’s legal bar.

The group said the bills, introduced Monday by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra (D-San José) and Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), were a response to recent Times investigations involving California lawyers. The Times found nine clients within L.A. County’s $4-billion sex-abuse settlement who said they were paid to sue and, in some cases, fabricate claims that became part of the historic payout. Another story examined opaque investor financing arrangements used by some firms.

“We’re not trying to insulate ourselves from accountability,” said Douglas Saeltzer, president of the attorney group, in an interview. “There needs to be consequences.”

The bill introduced by Zbur would disbar any attorney who is convicted of illegally soliciting clients. Kalra’s bill would ban private equity firms and hedge funds from dictating case strategy after giving money to a law firm.

Plaintiff’s attorneys say the legislative push is an attempt to clean up their profession’s image. It comes amid efforts by companies and governments frequently targeted by lawsuits to rein in a barrage of litigation.

Uber is pushing a measure for the November ballot that would limit how much lawyers can collect in fees for car crash cases, encouraging Californians to “stop the billboard lawyer scam.” A coalition of California counties has simultaneously begun circulating language to lawmakers that would limit attorneys’ ability to sue over older sex-abuse cases, pointing to recent allegations of fraud.

Zbur’s legislation, Assembly Bill 2039, would require the State Bar strip the license of any attorney with a felony conviction for a practice known as capping, in which law firms directly solicit or procure clients to sign up for lawsuits. Currently, attorneys convicted of capping can face suspension or probation, but are eligible to keep their license.

Under the bill, the attorney also would be disbarred for a misdemeanor capping conviction if the lawyer “acted knowingly and for financial gain.”

“It really is making very clear that if you’re engaging in this kind of capping, then there’s going to be a consequence,” Zbur said.

All clients who said they were paid to sue L.A. County over sex abuse were represented by Downtown LA Law Group, one of Southern California’s largest personal injury firms. The firm, also known as DTLA, is under investigation by the district attorney, the State Bar and L.A. County.

DTLA has denied any wrongdoing and said its lawyers “operate with unwavering integrity, prioritizing client welfare.”

Zbur’s bill also would provide whistleblower protections to people who report on attorney misconduct and tighten the rules around client loans. California is one of the few states where lawyers can lend money directly to clients.

Other states have barred the practice, concerned that direct loans give an attorney too much leverage over their clients.

The second bill introduced Monday, AB 2305, is aimed at the rising trend of private equity firms and hedge funds lending money to law firms and profiting from the payouts. The Times reported in December that investors were financing some of the flood of sex-abuse litigation against L.A. County.

Supporters of litigation finance say it gives attorneys the funding they need to take on deep-pocketed corporations and represent victims who can’t afford to sue on their own. Critics say investors can secretly sway case strategy, putting their profit before the best interests of a client.

“These Wall Street investors are salivating,” Kalra said. “This is just gonna clearly say, ‘No, no more. We’re not gonna allow these types of investments to influence the practice of law.’”

Kalra’s bill would bar investors from weighing in on litigation, such as who the firm should take on as a client and when they should settle a case. Any contracts that allow investor influence would be void under the law.

It’s unclear how the restrictions would be enforced. It’s often difficult to tell when an investor is financing a firm’s caseload, much less whether they’re exerting influence on a case.

Lawyers already are barred under the State Bar’s rules from allowing a third party to dictate case strategy and are barred in many cases from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.

“We’re finding that’s not enough,” Kalra said. “We actually need clear statutory safeguards.”