Prosecutors describe Russell Brand as a sexual predator

Russell Brand is on trial over allegations that he forced women into sexual acts, kissed and groped them, and ignored or mocked their objections. The allegations concern six women and events said to have happened between 1999 and 2009. Brand denies the charges and says all sexual contact was consensual.

The case has moved beyond the charges and pleas. Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC has opened the prosecution case, describing Brand as a sexual predator. Jurors have heard allegations from several women, including claims involving a hotel room, a radio station, a Soho bar, Brand's home and a filming project. They have also heard evidence from Brand's former friend Mark Pinheiro.

The trial is therefore at the evidence stage. The prosecution is presenting testimony and other material supporting its case. Brand is expected to challenge the allegations and suggest that some encounters were later reimagined after media reports about his alleged misconduct. The jury will eventually decide whether each charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In England and Wales, rape generally means intentionally penetrating another person's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without consent and without a reasonable belief in consent. Sexual assault generally involves intentional sexual touching without consent. The touching can occur through clothing. Consent is central to both offences, but the required act differs.

Indecent assault is an older offence involving an indecent assault or sexual act without consent. It applied under earlier legislation, so it can matter when alleged conduct happened before later sexual-offence laws came into force. The article lists one indecent-assault charge alongside rape and sexual-assault charges.

These labels describe separate legal charges, not different levels of proven wrongdoing. A jury must examine the evidence for each charge separately. It must decide whether the prosecution has proved the required act, lack of consent and other legal elements beyond reasonable doubt. The article does not provide the detailed wording of each indictment.

The prosecution case involves six women who accuse Brand of conduct occurring over a ten-year period, from 1999 through 2009. The allegations include claims of rape, sexual assault, groping, forced sexual acts and unwanted kissing. Brand denies the allegations and says the sexual contact was consensual.

There are seven criminal charges in total. They are three charges of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one allegation of indecent assault. The article describes separate alleged encounters in places including Bournemouth, a radio station, a Soho bar, Hampstead and a Channel 4 filming project.

The article does not separately state a total number of alleged incidents. It does state that six women accused Brand over alleged incidents between 1999 and 2009, and it gives the seven-charge breakdown. Each charge must be considered on its own evidence. The number of accusations does not itself establish guilt, which remains for the jury to decide.

The prosecutor represents the state and presents evidence intended to prove the charges. That includes opening the case, questioning prosecution witnesses and explaining why the evidence meets the legal tests. Here, Riel Karmy-Jones KC opened the prosecution case and described the allegations against Brand.

Defence lawyers protect the accused's legal interests. They can challenge witnesses, dispute the prosecution's interpretation and present Brand's account that sexual contact was consensual. The judge manages courtroom procedure, rules on legal issues and explains the law to jurors. The judge does not decide guilt.

The jury is made up of members of the public who assess the evidence and reach verdicts. It must consider every charge separately and convict only if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this trial, jurors have heard evidence from an alleged victim's accounts and from Mark Pinheiro, Brand's former friend. They will weigh reliability, consistency and other relevant evidence.

When allegations concern events many years ago, a jury may examine the complainant's evidence alongside any supporting or contradicting material. Relevant material can include messages, disclosures to other people, medical or work records, witness accounts and evidence about what happened before or after the alleged event. Memory, delay and differences between accounts may also be examined.

The article gives several examples. One woman claims Brand later apologised by text after telling her he had treated her like an animal. Mark Pinheiro recalled Brand cowering when police sirens were heard after Bournemouth and later saying he may have gone too far. Other allegations include witnesses describing entourages, locations and events around the alleged encounters.

Those examples are allegations or recollections, not automatic proof. The jury must decide what evidence is reliable and what weight it deserves. It must avoid deciding solely because an accusation is old, or solely because a witness remembers imperfectly. Brand's defence is expected to argue that encounters were consensual and later reimagined after media reports.

If Brand is found guilty, the court would record convictions for any charges the jury proves. The judge would then impose sentence under the law, considering the offences and relevant circumstances. Possible consequences can include imprisonment and other criminal penalties, but the article gives no likely sentence or sentencing range.

If the jury finds that the prosecution has not proved a charge beyond reasonable doubt, Brand must be found not guilty of that charge. The jury could reach different verdicts on different charges, because each allegation is assessed separately. A not-guilty verdict means the prosecution has not met the criminal standard for that charge.

The case is currently at trial, with prosecution evidence being heard. Brand has pleaded not guilty and says all sexual contact was consensual. The article does not state the verdict, sentence or any later appeal. Those outcomes depend on the evidence heard in court and the jury's decisions under the judge's legal directions.

Consent means a person freely agrees to a particular sexual act. It must be voluntary and based on the person's choice. It is not permanent. Someone can agree to one act but refuse another, and can withdraw agreement during the encounter. If agreement is absent or withdrawn, continuing can become unlawful.

Flirting, compliments, kissing, earlier sex or a relationship may show interest, but none automatically proves consent to later conduct. The article includes allegations that women objected, tried to push Brand away or refused sexual demands. It also reports claims that he said, “don't be a spoilsport,” and that one woman later said he had treated her like an animal.

Brand denies the allegations and says all sexual contact was consensual. That makes consent a central issue for the jury. Jurors must examine what each person said and did in each alleged encounter, rather than assuming consent from earlier behaviour. The prosecution must prove any alleged absence of consent to the required criminal standard.