Scots golfer Bernard Gallacher has accompanied his daughter Laura and son-in-law Russell Brand to Southwark Crown Court. The 77-year-old put his hand on his daughter's back as they exited a silver Mercedes and walked towards the steps at the court on Monday morning. The Ryder Cup winner was also pictured putting his arm around Laura's shoulder.
Closing Speech Begins
Last week, Laura Gallacher told the court he is an 'amazing husband and wonderful dad.' Russell Brand's barrister, Ian Winter KC, has now started delivering his closing speech to jurors. Mr Winter began by reciting an 1864 quote from philosopher John Henry Newman.
Quoting it, he said: “What I insist upon here, now that I am bringing this portion of my discussion to a close, is this unmanly attempt of his, in his concluding pages, to cut the ground from under my feet…. this I call poisoning the wells.”
Defence Arguments
He said that journalists had “poisoned the well of justice” in Brand's case by prompting the women to come forward. Living a “highly promiscuous life is entirely lawful”, Mr Winter told jurors. The barrister said the complainants did not make the “independent decision” to speak out.
He added: “Living a highly promiscuous life is entirely lawful however morally distasteful you may find it.” He added: “The question for you is can you possibly be sure in this case that out of the many, many women who voluntarily had sex with Mr Brand, he raped just three of them.”
Mr Winter said the 2023 allegations against Brand had had a “truly devastating effect” on him, reminding jurors of the defendant's recounting of being blocked from visiting his baby son when he was having open heart surgery at Great Ormond Street Hospital. Mr Winter said: “That tells you the extent to which public opinion has been perverted and corrupted.”
Impact of Allegations
Of the allegations, he said that the women “think it now”, but does not “reflect what they were actually thinking back then”. He added: “That is the precise consequence of the poisoning of the well.” The documentary caused people to “shun” the defendant, the barrister said.
Mr Winter told jurors that there is “nothing random” about the nature in which the complainants came forward. He said: “The prosecution put great weight both in the opening and closing speech about the fact that these women all emerged independently, they don't know each other.” He added: “There is nothing random at all about these people coming forward. They have all come forward because they have been brought at the invitation of that programme.”
Mr Winter told jurors: “It caused people to change what they thought about events that had happened a very long time ago because they now see what has happened through the lens of that programme. It caused people to shun Mr Brand, positively wish him ill before his trial took place and refuse to stand by him and give evidence for him.”
Mr Winter said the women in the case are “not random, not independent”. He said: “They are each thoroughly contaminated by the (Dispatches) programme.” Mr Winter added that the Crown's case is “fundamentally compromised” by the programme, adding that it renders the allegations “unfair”.
He added: “It is an extremely curious feature of this case that out of the many, many women that Mr Brand had sex with during this period only three of them say they did not consent to anal, oral or vaginal sex.”
Brand's Character
Brand respects it when a woman says no and sought “approbation and adoration” from women, Mr Winter said. He told jurors: “He respects it when a women says no so that makes him someone who is not a rapist.”
The barrister said: “He was seeking the approval in the sex, it's the approval, it's the 'yes I will have sex with you' and that's what he said in his evidence.” Mr Winter referred to Brand's evidence during which he said that consent is more important than the sex itself. He said that Brand was someone looking for “approbation and adoration”.
Mr Winter 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.” Mr Winter put to jurors: “Why is it that only three rapes in 10 years?”
The barrister also pointed to the evidence of Mr Brand's wife, adding: “She fell in love with that man in full knowledge of what he was doing. She married him, she bore him three children.” He added that she would not have done so if Brand was “guilty as charged”. The trial continues.
