Russell Brand raped and sexually assaulted women while treating them as "disposable commodities" and "amusements in his playground of orgasms", his trial was told. The 51-year-old is accused of attacking women in a hotel room, at his luxury London home, in their workplaces and in a Soho bar toilet.
Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC told Southwark Crown Court that Brand liked to exercise "control" over them and felt "disdain" towards them as he pursued his goal of having sex with 5,000 women. She pointed jurors to his 2007 book, where he discussed his "birthright orgasm", and a 2017 interview in which he referred to women as "amusements" in a "playground of orgasms".
Prosecution closing speech
Giving her closing speech to the jury, Ms Karmy-Jones said Brand "snapped" from charming to nasty as he attacked the six women. She said none of the complainants knew the others and none had anything to gain by coming forward except the "closure" of speaking out about encounters with Brand that have "haunted them for years".
Ms Karmy-Jones told jurors the women described a similar pattern of behaviour from the comedian that started with compliments, flattery and flirting before a "personality change". She said: "His eyes changed, he snapped, from charming to frightening to nasty."
The prosecutor said the women had claimed Brand "didn't listen when (they) said no, he didn't stop, he didn't care, pulling, pushing, tugging, thrusting". She added: "In the rape cases, he kept on going until he achieved his ultimate aim."
Of one complainant allegedly raped by Brand, Ms Karmy-Jones said she was "just a hole, just another number to add to his 5,000 notches which he was marking up". Concluding her speech, she told jurors: "Women as a whole were disposable, they didn't matter to him. He didn't even need to know their names. They were just a means to an end."
She said: "As he said in a 2017 interview, they were the amusements in what he described as his playground of orgasms. We suggest you will be satisfied so you are sure that the six complainants you have heard from told you the truth, not an invented truth, not a reimagined truth, but the real truth of what happened to them. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth and we invite you to find him guilty on all counts."
The 22 questions for the jury
Earlier, judge Mr Justice Bennathan took the jury through 22 questions to answer during their decision-making on the seven allegations against Brand. He told them they should reach unanimous verdicts and there would be "no pressure of time" to reach their decisions.
Count one – alleged rape in a hotel room during the 1999 Labour party conference. There is no dispute that there was penetrative sex.
- Are you sure that the complainant did not consent to sex with the defendant? If no, the verdict is not guilty and the count need not be considered further. If yes, go to question 2.
- Are you sure that the defendant either knew she was not consenting or was reckless as to whether she did or did not consent? If no, the verdict is not guilty. If yes, the verdict is guilty.
Count 2 – alleged attempted indecent assault at the MTV offices in central London in 2001.
- Are you sure the defendant tried to drag the complainant into the toilets? If yes, go to question 4. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure that the defendant did so intending to engage in some sort of sexual touching (even if not sure what type of sexual touching) without her consent? If no, the verdict is not guilty. If yes, go to question 5.
- Are you sure the defendant knew she would not consent to that sexual touching? If yes, the verdict is guilty. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
Count three – alleged sexual assault at a Soho bar.
- Are you sure the defendant deliberately touched the complainant's breasts? If yes, go to question 7. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure that touching was a sexual act? If yes, go to question 8. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure she did not consent to him doing so? If yes, go to question 9. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure the defendant did not reasonably believe she was consenting? If yes, the verdict is guilty. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
Count four – alleged rape at a Soho bar.
- Are you sure the defendant put his penis in the complainant's mouth? If yes, go to question 11. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure she did not consent to him doing so? If yes, go to question 12. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure the defendant did not reasonably believe she was consenting? If yes, the verdict is guilty. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
Count five – alleged sexual assault at a radio station.
- Are you sure the defendant deliberately kissed the complainant on the lips and/or touched her breasts and/or touched her bottom? If yes, go to question 14. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure that touching was a sexual act? If yes, go to question 15. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure she did not consent to him doing so? If yes, go to question 16. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure the defendant did not reasonably believe she was consenting? If yes, the verdict is guilty. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
Count six – alleged rape at Brand's Hampstead townhouse in 2009. There is no dispute that the defendant put his penis in the complainant's anus.
- Are you sure she did not consent to him doing so? If yes, go to question 18. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure the defendant did not reasonably believe she was consenting? If yes, the verdict is guilty. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
Count seven – alleged sexual assault while filming for a Channel 4 project in 2009.
- Are you sure the defendant deliberately put his head in the complainant's lap/groin area? If yes, go to question 20. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure that contact was a sexual act? If yes, go to question 21. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure she did not consent to him doing so? If yes, go to question 22. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
- Are you sure the defendant did not reasonably believe she was consenting? If yes, the verdict is guilty. If no, the verdict is not guilty.
Brand's evidence in response
Brand gave evidence on Wednesday, saying consent is "more important than sex itself" and denying forcing any of the women into sexual activity. He told the court it was "devastating" when he was first accused of rape and sexual misconduct in 2023 media reporting by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 Dispatches. Under questioning, Brand conceded he blames the media "in some ways" for the criminal charges he now faces.
On the Labour party conference allegation, Brand told the court he remembers meeting the "vivacious" woman and that when she asked him to go to her hotel room, he thought "at the bare minimum it was better than sleeping in the shared accommodation" and that there was "at least the possibility of sex". He said he does not recall jumping around on the woman's hotel bed like an "ostrich", but did "mess around, fool around and show off a lot". He said he would have asked her repeatedly during sex if she was enjoying it, including phrases such as "am I doing this right? Do you like this? Is this OK? Are you enjoying this? Is this all right?"
On the MTV allegation, Brand denied having any memory of the alleged attempted indecent assault. Asked by his barrister whether he "intended any non-consensual assault, sexual or otherwise" on the woman at MTV, Brand replied softly: "Of course not."
On the Soho bar allegation, Brand said he remembered his friend introducing the complainant, telling the court the man said something to the effect of: "There's a bird here who really wants to meet you, mate." Questioned on how she behaved when she met him, Brand said she was "wide-eyed" and "flirty". Asked whether he grabbed the woman's breast shortly after meeting her, Brand replied: "Absolutely not." He said he remembered going into the bathroom with her, but denied grabbing her by the arm and forcing her inside with him. When asked by Ms Karmy-Jones what he was inviting her into the toilet for, he said: "For fooling around, making out." He told the court the woman had got into his car "completely voluntarily".
On the radio station allegation, Brand was asked by his barrister: "In your view, jumping on a woman and sloppily kissing her, does that turn you on sexually?" He replied: "No." Asked "Is that likely to lead to any sexual intercourse with a woman?", he again said: "No." Asked "Did you do what she said you did?", Brand responded: "No." He said he could not recall the woman during his evidence.
On the Hammersmith Apollo allegation, Brand said he could not remember picking out the complainant after his 2009 stand-up show, though he said he would pick out people after gigs and invite them to the bar. He told jurors the woman had not said "no" or told him to stop as they were having sex, and said he had not forced her into anal sex, describing her attitude as "coquettishness, coyness" and saying she had never complained of pain. The prosecutor accused him of "rough and violent" sex with the young fan at his home. "The whole action was rough and violent, and just about your pleasure, wasn't it?" said Ms Karmy-Jones. Brand replied: "It potentially was about my pleasure, but it was not rough or violent."
On the Channel 4 massage allegation, Brand was asked by his barrister whether seeking a massage in these circumstances brings him sexual gratification, which he denied. Asked whether there was anything sexual in his conduct or intentions in relation to that matter, Brand responded: "No." He said he "couldn't see what benefit would be derived" from putting his head in the woman's lap.
Brand said during his evidence that the effect of the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary has been "devastating" and that his "entire life has been consumed" by the allegations against him. He said consent is "non-negotiable" and is "more important than sex itself". Ms Karmy-Jones accused Brand of staying silent on the accusations in his police interviews so that he "forged" his account around the evidence. "Were you waiting to see all that evidence before you gave your account?" she asked. Brand replied: "I was doing my best to participate."
What happens next
The jury is expected to retire to begin its deliberations on Tuesday. The trial continues on Monday, when Brand's barrister Ian Winter KC will give his closing speech, followed by a summing up of the evidence by the judge.
