Russell Brand raped woman even though she screamed in pain, court hears

The trial concerns allegations made by six women over a 10-year period beginning in 1999. Brand faces three rape charges, three sexual assault charges and one indecent assault charge. The allegations describe different forms of sexual misconduct and are being considered by Southwark crown court.

The evidence reported here focuses on one woman. She alleges Brand picked her from a crowd at an early-2009 performance, took her to his London townhouse, and anally raped her after consensual vaginal sex. Several witnesses described what she allegedly told them soon afterwards, including claims that she repeatedly asked him to stop.

Brand, aged 51, denies all the charges and has pleaded not guilty. The court is hearing evidence from witnesses connected to the woman, while Brand’s barrister has challenged some accounts in cross-examination. The trial continues, so the allegations have not been proved.

The prosecution brings seven charges against Russell Brand. They comprise three charges of rape, three of sexual assault and one of indecent assault. The allegations involve six women and span 10 years, from 1999. Brand denies all the charges and has pleaded not guilty.

The court heard from 24 witnesses connected to one woman whose allegation concerns an incident in early 2009. They include her parents, friends, a former boyfriend, a colleague and a sexual health nurse. Several witnesses described disclosures she allegedly made shortly after the incident, including that she had been hurt and had repeatedly asked Brand to stop.

These figures describe the case’s scale, not its outcome. The charges still have to be tested at trial, and the jury must decide whether the prosecution has proved each charge. The trial continues, with evidence and cross-examination still under way.

Under England and Wales law, rape generally means intentional penetration of another person’s vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without consent and without a reasonable belief in consent. Consent means agreeing by choice, with the freedom and capacity to make that choice. The prosecution must prove the required elements beyond reasonable doubt.

Sexual assault is different because it concerns intentional sexual touching without consent and without a reasonable belief in consent. It does not require penile penetration. Indecent assault is an older offence used for certain non-consensual indecent touching or assault, especially under earlier law; its precise legal elements depend on when the alleged conduct occurred.

The article reports three charges in each of the rape and sexual-assault categories, plus one indecent-assault charge. Because the allegations span 1999 to 2009, the applicable law can vary by alleged date. The court will apply the relevant legal definitions to each charge.

Consent is not a blanket permission for every sexual act. A person may agree to one act but refuse another, or withdraw agreement during sex. Consent must relate to the particular activity and continue while it happens. Earlier agreement therefore does not automatically establish consent to later penetration or another sexual act.

The woman at the centre of this evidence alleges she had consensual vaginal sex with Brand at his London townhouse. She says he then “flipped” her over and anally raped her. Her parents, colleague and friends reportedly described her saying that she asked him to stop, repeatedly or several times, but he did not.

That distinction matters because the jury must assess the specific act charged, not simply whether sexual contact began willingly. The prosecution still has to prove the relevant lack of consent and other legal elements beyond reasonable doubt. Brand denies the charges, and the trial continues.

The evidence includes the woman’s own account, testimony from people she allegedly told, and evidence about events after the alleged attack. Her parents said she confided in them shortly afterwards and feared she had contracted HIV. The article also says she told friends, a colleague and a sexual health nurse, while several people encouraged her to contact police.

Her colleague described her as pale and unwell. The colleague said the woman reported pain, bleeding and repeated requests to stop. Friends described her saying Brand treated her “like an animal”, called her “dirty”, and changed from charming to violent. One friend also discussed messages and calls Brand allegedly sent before a later festival meeting.

The court must assess how these accounts fit together and what weight to give them. The article does not say that the sexual health nurse gave evidence or describe any medical findings. Brand denies the charges, and witnesses are being questioned in the continuing trial.

People may delay reporting because they fear disbelief, feel ashamed, blame themselves, feel intimidated, or believe reporting is not worthwhile. In this case, the article says the woman feared she would not be believed. Friends and a colleague said she declined or hesitated when encouraged to go to police, while one friend said she felt it was not worth it.

A delay can affect an investigation because memories may change, messages or other records may be lost, and investigators may have fewer immediate opportunities to collect medical or forensic evidence. However, the article describes several contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous disclosures to parents, friends, a colleague and a sexual health nurse. Those accounts can become part of the evidence about what she said and when.

A delayed report does not automatically establish that an allegation is true or false. The jury must consider all evidence, including explanations for the delay, witness reliability and any supporting or conflicting material. Brand denies the charges, and the trial is ongoing.

In a Crown Court trial, prosecutors must prove each charge beyond reasonable doubt. That means the jury must be sure the defendant committed the offence and that every required legal element is established. For a rape charge, this generally includes the alleged penetration, lack of consent and the absence of a reasonable belief in consent. Other charges have different elements.

The jury considers the evidence presented in court. It may assess testimony, messages, surrounding events and the reliability of witnesses. It must consider each charge separately. Evidence that may support one allegation does not automatically prove every other allegation. The burden remains with the prosecution throughout the trial.

If the jury is not sure that a charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it must find the defendant not guilty of that charge. That verdict does not mean the jury has established that nothing happened; it means the legal standard was not met. Brand denies all charges, and the trial continues.