Russell Brand is on trial at Southwark Crown Court in London accused of seven sexual offences against six women. On Monday, the third complainant told the court that he grabbed her breasts and dragged her into a bar toilet in 2004, where he orally raped her. Brand denies all charges.
The third of six complainants to give evidence at Southwark Crown Court said she had wanted to meet Brand because she had seen him on television and thought he was funny. But she told police, in a tearful interview played to jurors, that less than a minute into their conversation he grabbed her breasts. She described a weird, maniacal grin on his face. He then pulled her to nearby toilets, where he allegedly orally raped her, holding her by the head and hair, she said, telling her: “Come on, come on, don’t be a spoilsport.” The words were not threatening, she said, but the force and his look were.
Under cross-examination by Brand’s lawyer Ian Winter, the woman rejected suggestions that she had been excited to meet him, saying she was not star struck or a giddy schoolgirl. Winter suggested she had happily accompanied Brand to the lavatory, that people in the bar would have seen if she had been groped or dragged, and that the alleged assault was physically impossible. He also asked why she had not said she was raped until after a 2023 documentary and press report about Brand. She said she had told friends and her sister at the time that he had tried to force himself on her but she had got away, and she had not wanted people to judge her.
The first complainant has told the court that Brand raped her after she met him at a fringe event at the 1999 Labour Party conference in southern England. The second said that in 2001 a “wild-eyed” Brand tried to pull her into the male toilets at MTV Europe in London. Brand has denied all charges, telling police after his arrest that he had never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity and the accusers might have re-imagined events. The trial, expected to last about six weeks, continues.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The trial places a once prominent British broadcaster and comedian under criminal scrutiny over alleged conduct spanning a decade.
- The case tests how a jury assesses sexual offence allegations dating back more than 20 years, when independent evidence may be scarce.
- The outcome is likely to shape public debate on how complainants who delayed reporting are treated in court.
Background
Russell Brand rose to fame in the 2000s as one of Britain’s most recognisable comedians and broadcasters, and drew international attention, including through his marriage to US pop star Katy Perry. The charges relate to incidents said to have occurred between 1999 and 2009. The woman now giving evidence told police she spoke to friends and her sister at the time about an attempted assault, but first described the event as rape after a 2023 documentary and press report about Brand. The prosecutor opened the trial by describing Brand as a ruthless sexual predator. Brand has pleaded not guilty to all charges and has said he never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity.
Key Perspectives
The complainant: She says Brand grabbed her without warning, dragged her into a bar toilet and orally raped her. She told the court she froze and did not report it as rape at the time because she feared being judged.
The defence: Brand’s lawyer Ian Winter put to the woman that she went to the lavatory willingly, that people in the bar would have seen if she had been groped or dragged, and that the alleged assault was physically impossible. He also challenged the delay in calling the incident rape. Brand himself denies every charge.
Critics and skeptics: The trial turns on the credibility of six complainants against a blanket denial. The defence is likely to press on inconsistencies and delayed reporting, while the prosecution will rely on the consistency of the accounts given by the women.
What to Watch
- Evidence from the remaining three complainants as the prosecution continues its case.
- Whether the defence introduces witnesses or other evidence about the layout of the bar and its toilets.
- The jury’s verdict after a trial expected to run for about six weeks.