Russell Brand's barrister has told jurors at Southwark Crown Court that being "disrespectful or rude or acting like a crazy idiot" towards women during sex is not a crime if there is consent.
Ian Winter KC made the remarks as he concluded his closing speech on Monday (November 2), urging the jury to separate Brand's sexual behaviour and treatment of women from the question of whether he committed crimes.
Defence argues consent was genuinely believed
Mr Winter told jurors: "It is not criminal to treat women unkindly before, during or after sex. It is not, I am afraid, criminal to be disrespectful or rude or to act like a crazy idiot. If there is consent it is lawful."
He also said that Brand, 51, "genuinely believed" the women were consenting, which is why he was described as acting normally.
Brand denies three charges of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted indecent assault against six women, in allegations spanning 10 years from 1999.
Complainants' evidence 'curious feature'
Mr Winter said there was a "curious feature" to the evidence from the complainants, adding: "They have all given evidence that Mr Brand's behaviour was normal either during and/or after the incidents."
He added: "That, we suggest, is something that simply cannot have occurred if he is guilty."
The barrister said the fact he behaved normally showed Brand believed they had consented. He added: "He couldn't have been behaving normally if he knew they were not. He obviously genuinely believed that they were consenting because that's the only thing that would explain why his behaviour was normal."
Mr Winter added that there is "no evidence he is some sort of psychopath who rapes people and thinks it's normal".
Documentary 'poisoned the well'
Mr Winter also told jurors: "What matters is he (Brand) had an immense amount of sex and none of it was unlawful." He added: "Disgusting, distasteful, immoral, who cares? It's irrelevant to your consideration."
He told the jury that reporting in a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary by The Times and The Sunday Times prompted the complainants to come forward, but had created a "fundamentally compromised" case against the comedian.
Opening his speech, the barrister quoted 19th-century philosopher John Henry Newman and his description of an attempt to "poison the wells". He told jurors that journalists had "poisoned the well of justice" in Brand's case, saying the women had been "drawn forth" by the 2023 allegations rather than independently deciding to report their own.
He said: "They all came forward for reasons connected to the TV programme, not for reasons personable to themselves."
Mr Winter said the women were "not random, not independent", adding that they had each been "thoroughly contaminated" by the documentary. Of the allegations, he said that the women may "think it now", but this does not "reflect what they were actually thinking back then". He added: "That is the precise consequence of the poisoning of the well."
Delay described as 'monstrous'
Mr Winter also argued that the passage of time had created another problem for the case, describing the delay between the alleged offences and reports to police as "monstrous".
He said: "Delay makes it impossible to litigate the issues in the way you would if it wasn't in the way."
Mr Winter added that delay "does something particularly savage in a case where it's one person's word against another person's word." He told jurors they were dealing with a "quagmire of doubt and inaccurate recollection".
The trial continues.
