Russell Brand rape trial: defence lawyer argues comedian is no psychopath in closing argument
Brand's defence lawyer told the jury there is "no evidence" the comedian is a psychopath, arguing all encounters were consensual. Closing arguments concluded after a three-week trial.
Brand's lawyer: 'Rapists do not leave their email address'
Russell Brand's defence barrister Ian Winter KC told the jury there is "no evidence" that the comedian is "some kind of psychopath who rapes people and thinks it's normal," according to yahoo.com, which reported on the closing arguments delivered this week following a three-week trial at a London court.
"The fact he behaved normally during and after all of those 'rapes' tells you what you need to know," Winter said, as reported by Sky News. "He believed they were all consenting. You would have to be a psychopath to be raping someone and asking them if they were enjoying it at the same time."
Winter pointed to specific details of Brand's conduct following the alleged incidents, noting that Brand had left his email address and photographs with one of the complainants and had attempted to kiss her goodbye when he departed. "Rapists do not leave their address," Winter told the court. "Rapists do not leave their photographs."
Brand has pleaded not guilty to three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted indecent assault. The alleged incidents are said to have occurred between 1999 and 2009.
Prosecution called defence 'half-truths spun into lies'
With both sides having now delivered their closing statements, the prosecution characterised Brand's defence as "a lot of half-truths" that had been "spun into lies." Winter, in turn, accused the prosecution of "desperation" after they cited Brand's 2007 memoir My Booky Wook as evidence during cross-examination — specifically passages in which Brand wrote about pretending to be gay to gain women's trust.
"In 2007 he wrote a funny book, My Booky Wook, it contains some jokes," Winter said. He argued the jury was being asked to take what Brand wrote eight years after the events in question and use it as evidence of his conduct in 1999.
Winter also urged the jury to set aside Brand's openly promiscuous lifestyle when weighing the verdict. "Put out of your mind any distaste you may feel for the way he lived his life," he said. "That way of living is not criminal." He added: "Even being manipulative in the pursuit of consensual sex is completely lawful."
Channel 4 documentary 'poisoned the well of justice,' lawyer argues
A substantial part of Winter's closing argument targeted the 2023 Channel 4 documentary, produced jointly with The Sunday Times of London, which alleged Brand had been a serial abuser. The documentary featured five women who accused Brand of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse. Brand issued a strong denial ahead of its broadcast.
One of the complainants in the current case — who claims Brand anally raped her following consensual sex in 2009 — stated in evidence that she had watched the documentary before coming forward.
"One wonders what her evidence would have been if she'd not seen the programme," Winter told the jury. He argued there was "nothing random" about the complainants coming forward, saying they had done so "at the invitation of that programme."
Winter described the complainants as "thoroughly contaminated" by the documentary, asserting that its existence had "fundamentally corrupted" their accounts and rendered the proceedings "fundamentally unfair." He was particularly pointed in his criticism of the film itself, calling it "one-sided" and "produced in a dramatic manner," and questioning its claim to be a documentary at all.
He further argued that Brand had not spoken to any of the journalists involved in the 90-minute programme and had only been offered a standard right of reply — an opportunity typically extended by journalists to allow subjects to respond to allegations — in order to protect the outlet against defamation claims. The allegations in the documentary, Winter noted, had never been tested in a court of law, and he accused the journalists of having "poisoned the well of justice" by prompting the plaintiffs to come forward.
'Apply pure, cold logic,' jury told
Concluding his address, Winter urged the jury to approach the evidence without moral judgement. "Do what the journalists totally failed to do — put all condemnation completely out of the mind and apply pure, cold logic to the question: are we sure on the evidence we have seen that Brand did do what is alleged?"
"Disgusting, distasteful, immoral — who cares? It's irrelevant to your consideration," he said.
Winter ended his closing argument with a direct assertion: "Brand is innocent."
Source: Google News MT