Russell Brand rape trial: defence says media 'poisoned the well of justice'
Brand's barrister told Southwark Crown Court that a Channel 4 documentary and press coverage prompted complainants to make allegations years after the alleged events.
Defence blames Channel 4 documentary and press for tainting Brand trial
Google News IE — Crime (en) reports that journalists "poisoned the well of justice" by prompting complainants to come forward against Russell Brand — so argued Brand's defence barrister in his closing speech at Southwark Crown Court on Monday.
Ian Winter KC told jurors that a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary and coverage in the Times and Sunday Times, both published in 2023, "caused people who had not previously considered it appropriate to bring criminal allegations against him, to do so, and very many years after."
Brand faces seven counts in total: three counts of rape, three charges of sexual assault, and one allegation of attempted indecent assault.
Winter told the jury that "living a highly promiscuous life is entirely lawful", and challenged them to be certain that, "out of the many, many women who voluntarily had sex with Mr Brand, that he raped just three of them."
He described it as an "extremely curious feature" of the case that Brand "obviously genuinely believed that they were consenting", arguing that was "the only thing that would explain why his behaviour was normal." Winter added there was "no evidence he is some sort of psychopath who rapes people and thinks it's normal."
Addressing a specific allegation dating from 1999, Winter said a perpetrator would "have to be a psychopath" to be raping someone while simultaneously "asking if they were enjoying it." He further argued: "He left her his actual email address. Rapists do not give out their email address. Rapists do not leave their photographs. Rapists do not kiss their victims goodbye."
Documentary described as 'very one-sided'
Winter reminded jurors that the trial judge had already directed them that the Dispatches programme was "very one-sided" and "produced in a dramatic manner." The barrister said it was "published without a single journalist ever speaking to Mr Brand about it other than to protect their defamation risk."
He argued that Brand is innocent of the allegations contained in the programme, and that as a result, it "poisoned the well in respect of things of which Mr Brand is innocent." Winter described the six complainants as "not random", saying they were "thoroughly contaminated by the programme."
Hospital barred Brand from son's bedside, jury told
Jurors were reminded of Brand's own evidence about the personal toll of the media coverage. Winter cited what he called one "graphic" example of the "truly devastating effect": a hospital would not permit Brand to visit the bedside of his baby son following life-saving open heart surgery. Brand had previously told the court that Great Ormond Street Hospital refused to let him stay with his son because of "material that had been published in the public eye."
Winter told the jury the incident demonstrated "the extent to which public opinion has … corrupted."
Wife's testimony cited in closing
Brand's barrister also drew on evidence given by Brand's wife, Laura, saying she "fell in love with that man in full knowledge of what he was doing", married him, and had three children with him. Winter argued she would not have done so had Brand been "guilty as charged."
Winter acknowledged that Brand "had an immense amount of sex", but maintained "none of it was unlawful", adding: "Disgusting, distasteful, immoral, who cares? It's irrelevant to your consideration."
Brand arrived at Southwark Crown Court on Monday accompanied by his wife Laura and her father Bernard Gallacher, the former professional golfer.
The trial continues.
Source: Google News IE — Crime (en)