Russell Brand has been found guilty of rape and sexual assault, and it has been reported that jurors were blocked from hearing about his ex-wife Katy Perry and his past addictions.
Perry Removed from Prosecution Case
Prosecutors were keen to mention Perry when opening the case against Brand over allegations of rape and sexual assault during 10 years of his showbiz career, but the Grammy-nominated singer was removed from lead prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC's speech after submissions made by Brand's legal team.
The prosecutors also agreed not to bring up Brand's past religious interests, prior to his recent conversion to Christianity. He and Perry were married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Rajasthan, in India, in 2010, at a venue close to a tiger sanctuary, but in the last two years Brand has converted to Christianity.
Pre-Trial Submissions and Evidence
In legal submissions before the trial began, Ms Karmy-Jones set out: "The prosecution recognise that matters post 2009 involving his relationship with Katy Perry may be sensitive, as may his previous faiths, and we are content to remove these from the opening."
She also agreed to remove mention of Brand's baptism in the River Thames in Henley in 2024, in a ceremony that was attended by TV presenter Bear Grylls. When Brand gave evidence, he mentioned his short-lived marriage to Perry and said it was at that point that he achieved "staggering fame".
They started dating after meeting on the set of the film Get Him To The Greek in 2009, but by the end of 2011 their marriage was over. The CPS has confirmed that Perry was not asked for a witness statement during the investigation into Brand.
Drug and Alcohol Details Excluded
Senior crown prosecutor David Roberts said: "We followed all reasonable lines of inquiry in statements that would have been relevant to the specific charges and I'm satisfied that all reasonable lines of inquiry were covered."
In pre-trial arguments, that can be published now the case is over, it was revealed that details of Brand's drug use and alcoholism would not feature in the case. The prosecution wanted to rely on Brand's "dependency" on drink and drugs, but defence barrister Ian Winter KC objected to the argument being ventured.
"Putting aside the illogicality of the suggestion that dependency issues mean he would engage in non-consensual sex, none of the complainants assert that Mr Brand was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their encounters with him", he told the judge.
Witness Statements and Defence Arguments
Brand's former assistant Helen Berger was allowed to give evidence of Brand's "insane sexual appetite", but her statement was edited to omit her assumption that he had a sex addiction, as well as reference to Brand's past treatment at a sex addiction clinic. Brand's former friend Mark Pinheiro was also blocked from discussing the comedian's substance abuse, including a suggestion that his mood had soured during the 1999 Labour Party conference - when he was accused of raping a woman - because his cannabis had been thrown away. He was later found not guilty of that charge.
Brand's team failed to block the jury from hearing evidence from Ms Berger of him getting "depressed" after sex, his penchant for sex in toilets and dressing rooms, and evidence that he would "switch off the charm" when a woman mentioned she was in a relationship.
Prosecutors wanted to use evidence from one of Brand's former flatmates, Andrew Dobson, that he would tell female friends "don't go there" about the comedian, as well as Mr Pinheiro's reported comment: "Russell's not right, is he?"
Extracts from Brand's book, Mr Booky Wook, were read out to the jury by Ms Karmy-Jones KC, including lines where Brand had referred to himself as "guilty" after sex, and suggested that he had a "birthright" to orgasm. But his follow-up book, My Booky Wook 2, was kept out of the case, after the defence team pointed out it had been published after the last of the allegations in 2009.
The 2023 Dispatches documentary, Russell Brand: In Plain Sight, loomed large over the trial, and formed a cornerstone of Brand's defence argument that all the evidence against him had been tainted by the reporting. But jurors were chosen who had never seen the documentary, and it was never aired during the four-week case.
