Jurors in London begin deliberations in comedian Brand case — ABC News Australia

In London, United Kingdom, jurors have begun deliberations to reach verdicts in the case of comedian Russell Brand, who faces seven charges, including rape and sexual assault. The hearings lasted more than three weeks, ABC News Australia reports.

The 51-year-old Brand is charged with three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted indecent assault involving six women. According to the prosecution, the alleged crimes occurred between 1999 and 2009. The comedian denies all charges and insists that he did not have sexual contact without consent.

The prosecution’s position

Prosecutor Riel Karmi-Jones described Brand as a ruthless, calculating and manipulative sexual predator. She said that the similar testimony of six women who did not know one another could not be a coincidence. According to her, the complainants did not seek publicity, did not pursue financial compensation and could expect little more than some form of closure.

More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.

The prosecution alleges that after initially charming behaviour, Brand coerced women into sexual acts. One of the complainants, the prosecutor said, recounted that he did not stop when she refused. Karmi-Jones urged jurors to assess Brand’s behaviour during the period of the alleged crimes, rather than his current attitude towards women and the concept of consent.

Defence arguments

The defence insists that all sexual contact was consensual. Lawyer Ian Winter said that the 2023 Channel 4 Dispatches documentary, which aired allegations of Brand’s sexual misconduct, may have influenced some women’s memories and prompted them to reassess their relationships with him.

Brand himself gave evidence for more than four hours. He acknowledged that in his youth he was prone to promiscuous sexual relationships and misused his popularity to gain sexual access to women. At the same time, the comedian repeated that all incidents covered by the charges were consensual. Judge Joel Bennatan stressed to the jurors that consent is the central issue in the case and instructed them to carefully consider each charge and reach unanimous verdicts.