Just reading through this thread I have spotted a lot of innaccuracies and contradictions to what I have read surrounding Russell Brand and this case, I have followed this case in great detail so I thought it is probably worth me trying to set the record straight, hopefully.
There wasn't "no evidence", this is false. It's also not just 6 women who have come out against Russell Brand, there is more, the 6 women are just the ones that have had their cases taken to court. It's also important to note that 12 different jurors all unanimously convicted him on the evidence given. 12 jurors and not even one had any objections that would result in a mistrial. You cannot convict anyone on NO EVIDENCE, that's not how this works, there is always evidence and Russell Brand had bundles of evidence against him.
The prosecution's case against Russell Brand was built primarily on the testimony of the four women he was convicted of assaulting, supported by witnesses, text messages, historical records and evidence about his behaviour at the time.
It wasn't a case based on DNA or CCTV. The alleged offences dated back to 2004–2009, so investigators had to reconstruct events many years later.
Here is what the jury heard.
1. The rape conviction – 2009
A woman who had met Brand after one of his comedy performances at the Hammersmith Apollo said:
- She went back to his home with him.
- They initially had consensual sexual contact.
- She said he subsequently raped her anally without a condom.
- She later confronted him about what had happened.
Important evidence: She subsequently exchanged text messages with Brand. In one message, he responded, "I'm sorry".
The prosecution relied on her account and the messages as evidence supporting her allegation.
Reuters+1
2. Sexual assault – MTV employee, 2004
A woman working for MTV said Brand:
- Groped her breasts at a party in a Soho bar.
- Subsequently took her into a toilet and forced her to perform oral sex.
The jury convicted him of the groping but acquitted him of the alleged rape in the toilet.
3. Sexual assault – radio employee, 2004/2005
A woman working at Choice FM said Brand encountered her in a corridor at the Capital Radio building.
She told the court that he:
- Pushed her against a wall.
- Kissed her.
- Grabbed and painfully groped her.
The jury convicted him of this sexual assault.
4. Sexual assault – Channel 4 employee, 2009
A woman working on a Channel 4 project said she had been required to give Brand a massage.
She described him thrusting his head into her groin during the incident.
The jury convicted him of sexual assault.
5. What other evidence did prosecutors use?
There was also a substantial amount of supporting investigative material:
- More than 100 witnesses interviewed.
- Over 400 witness statements collected.
- More than 1,400 documents examined.
- Historical photographs and floor plans of locations connected to the allegations.
- Brand's books, interviews, stand-up performances, television appearances and podcasts were examined.
- Statements from people who knew him and could provide evidence about his behaviour and the circumstances surrounding the allegations.
His 2007 autobiography and comments about his sexual behaviour also featured in the prosecution's wider presentation of his conduct.
Metropolitan Police+1
6. Did he admit anything?
Brand admitted in court that:
- He had been extremely promiscuous.
- He had been obsessed with sex.
- He had used his celebrity status to facilitate sexual access to women.
However, he maintained that all sexual encounters were consensual and denied committing the offences.
The important distinction
The prosecution did not have forensic proof or CCTV footage of the alleged offences. Its case relied heavily on the women's accounts and the supporting evidence gathered around them.
The jury considered the evidence and convicted him on four counts, while acquitting him on three others.
That distinction matters: the convictions were decisions made by the jury on the evidence presented, not simply a finding that he had behaved promiscuously or inappropriately.
You can read the official prosecution account here:
www.cps.gov.uk
England
