Russell Brand trial: accusers have ‘nothing to gain’ and were not led by media, court told

Russell Brand faces seven criminal charges arising from allegations made by six women. The charges include three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted indecent assault. The alleged offences span 10 years, from 1999.

The prosecution says Brand assaulted women despite their objections and, in rape cases, continued until he achieved his aim. It also alleges that he used later requests for phone numbers or emails as a form of gaslighting. Brand’s barrister disputes the prosecution’s case and is due to give the defence closing speech.

Brand’s response is a complete denial. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The jury must assess the competing accounts and decide whether the prosecution has proved each charge to the criminal standard. The trial was continuing when the article was published, so no verdict had been reached.

Six women who do not know one another have given evidence against Russell Brand. The prosecution says they came forward independently and described encounters that had haunted them for years. Their evidence is central because the charges concern alleged conduct involving each of the six women.

Brand is charged with seven offences in total. These are three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted indecent assault. The article says the indecent-assault allegation was changed to attempted indecent assault on Tuesday.

The allegations cover 10 years, beginning in 1999. One account described in court concerns a fan who allegedly met Brand at the Hammersmith Apollo in 2009 before an alleged assault at his London townhouse. Brand denies all charges. The jury must consider each allegation separately rather than treating the number of accusations as proof.

A prosecutor’s closing speech is the prosecution’s final opportunity to organise its evidence and arguments for the jury. It does not introduce a new case. Instead, it explains why the testimony and other evidence should lead jurors to conclude that the charges have been proved.

In this trial, Riel Karmy-Jones KC argued that six women gave vivid, consistent accounts and had no meaningful reason to invent them. She highlighted alleged patterns, including Brand’s reported change from charming to frightening behaviour and claims that he continued after women said no.

The closing speech matters because jurors must now weigh the prosecution’s interpretation against the defence’s response. The defence closing speech is due from Ian Winter KC. After both sides finish, the judge directs the jury on the law, and the jury considers verdicts on each charge separately.

The prosecution’s central point is that the six women reached the decision to report independently. Karmy-Jones said they did not know one another and were not compelled by the “magic force” of media reporting. She rejected the idea that a documentary made rational women invent or reshape their memories.

She also stressed what the women supposedly had little or nothing to gain. They had not sought the limelight, taken part in the 2023 Dispatches documentary or made compensation claims. The prosecutor said their only possible benefit was closure from telling their accounts in court.

The prosecution says the women’s similar descriptions and specific details support independence rather than coordination. It argues they realised they were not alone and then bravely reported experiences they had lived with for years. These points are arguments for the jury to assess, not findings that establish guilt.

After closing speeches and the judge’s legal directions, the jury must decide whether Brand is guilty or not guilty of each charge. In a criminal trial, the prosecution carries the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Jurors must base decisions on admissible evidence, not publicity or speculation.

They will compare the prosecution’s account with the defence arguments. The article says the judge warned them that they would face “rival arguments”. They must examine the evidence relating to each alleged rape, sexual assault and attempted indecent assault separately.

If the jury reaches guilty verdicts, the case can proceed to sentencing for those offences. If it returns not-guilty verdicts, Brand cannot be convicted on those charges. The article states that the trial was continuing, with the defence closing speech due on Monday, so the outcome was not yet known.

Sexual offences may be reported long after alleged events for many reasons. A person may feel afraid, ashamed, traumatised or unable to speak at the time. They may later gain support or recognise that others have had similar experiences. The article specifically says some women were haunted for years and came forward after realising they were not alone.

Time can create trial difficulties. Memories may become less precise, witnesses may be harder to locate, and messages or other records may no longer exist. A jury must therefore examine both remembered evidence and any supporting material carefully. These are general trial issues, not findings about the witnesses in this case.

The prosecution says the women gave vivid recollections and specific details despite the passage of time. The defence will challenge the prosecution’s interpretation. Ultimately, jurors must decide whether the evidence is reliable enough to prove each charge beyond reasonable doubt.

In criminal law, sexual consent generally means a person freely agrees to the specific sexual activity. Consent must involve choice, freedom and capacity, and it can be withdrawn at any time. The precise legal directions come from the judge, who explains them to the jury before deliberations.

The prosecution says several women told Brand no or asked him to stop, but he allegedly continued. Karmy-Jones described conduct involving pulling, pushing, tugging and thrusting. In the alleged rape cases, she said he kept going until he achieved his aim. Whether those events happened, and what Brand understood, are issues for the jury.

This makes the alleged response to objections important, but it does not decide the case by itself. Jurors must test the evidence against every legal element of each charge. Brand denies the allegations. The judge’s directions and the evidence will guide the jury’s final decisions.