The convicted rapist’s sworn US deposition, reported by The Mail on Sunday, appears at odds with evidence he gave at his UK trial. It emerged in a New York civil case brought by a woman who alleges he assaulted her on the set of the film Arthur.
Russell Brand told a New York deposition that he felt he “must have” exposed himself to women without their consent, The Mail on Sunday has reported. The comedian and actor, 51, who was convicted this week of rape and sexual assault at Southwark Crown Court, made the remark in a civil case brought by a woman who says he assaulted her during filming of Arthur in 2010. The newspaper says it appears in documents filed last week at New York’s Supreme Court. Brand has always maintained that his sexual encounters were consensual.
What the deposition reportedly says
According to the newspaper, part of Brand’s sworn deposition was released in the filings. He was asked whether he had ever exposed his genitals to anybody without their “explicit or verbal consent”.
“Well, the truth is, I feel like I must have done, even though I don’t really remember it and I find the idea embarrassing in quite a number of ways,” he replied, according to the report. He added: “I couldn’t concretely and absolutely rule that out.”
The source material notes that the transcript itself has not been independently located in publicly accessible court records. The wording should therefore be treated as reported by The Mail on Sunday. An acknowledgement that exposure may have occurred in the past is not an admission of the specific assault alleged in the lawsuit, and does not establish the facts of that claim.
The New York lawsuit
The claimant, an extra identified only as “Jane Doe”, is suing Brand and Warner Bros. She alleges that Brand “appeared intoxicated” and “exposed his penis to me on set in full view of the cast and crew”. The claim centres on an alleged incident during filming of Arthur in July 2010. She says he later confronted her as she left a bathroom cubicle and sexually assaulted her.
She is seeking an undisclosed sum in damages from Brand over allegations including sexual assault, battery, false imprisonment and emotional distress. She claims psychological injuries and financial losses. Warner Bros and other production companies face negligence claims.
The case was filed under New York’s Adult Survivors Act in November 2023. The legislation temporarily reopened access to the civil courts for certain historical sexual-abuse claims that would otherwise have been barred by limitation periods.
Contrast with his UK evidence
The Mail on Sunday says the deposition contrasts with what Brand said in his criminal case. Jurors at Southwark Crown Court heard a prepared statement he gave to police in 2023, in which he said: “I have never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity.”
Giving evidence on 28 October, he told the court: “Consent is fundamental, essential, necessary and indeed in many ways more important than sex itself.”
Brand insisted that all his sexual encounters had been consensual. He was convicted of one rape and three sexual assaults and cleared of two further rape charges and one count of attempted indecent assault. He was refused bail and is due to be sentenced at 10.30am on Monday 9 November. The judge has already indicated that a significant custodial sentence is expected.
Court rulings in the civil case
On 3 November, the New York Post reported that Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Adam Silvera had rejected Warner Bros’ attempt to have the negligence claim dismissed. The ruling allows the claims against the studio to proceed towards trial and is not a finding of liability. According to the newspaper, the judge found that a jury could reasonably consider whether Brand’s alleged conduct was foreseeable when he was hired, including information publicly available about his behaviour. Warner Bros had argued that it received no complaints from the set and had no advance notice. The claimant’s lawyers welcomed the decision, and the studio had not said whether it would appeal.
A separate ruling dated 30 January 2026 shows that the claimant’s lawyers tried to stop a defence psychiatrist, Dr Alexander Shasha Bardey, from testifying. They argued that two questions about her finances and previous legal proceedings breached restrictions set before his examination. Justice Silvera refused to exclude the evidence and left open the possibility of objections to particular subjects at trial.
In an April filing, Brand’s lawyers argued that he had a reasonable basis to fear future criminal proceedings in the US, according to AOL. They made the argument while asking for the civil case to be delayed, and the request was rejected. Brand has not been publicly charged with any offence in the US in connection with the Arthur allegations. The New York proceedings are civil, which use a different standard of proof from a criminal trial.
Further police inquiries and a UK civil claim
The Metropolitan Police have said that two further women have made rape allegations against Brand which are being investigated separately from the completed trial. The Guardian reported that he has been interviewed under caution over both complaints and that files have been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. No further charges have been announced and the allegations remain unproven.
The force said its investigation involved interviews with more than 100 witnesses, more than 400 witness statements and more than 1,400 documents, much of it reconstructing events from over 15 years ago. Detectives also reviewed hundreds of hours of Brand’s stand-up, television appearances, interviews and podcasts, as well as his books. The force said the inquiry had no CCTV or forensic evidence for the historical offences and relied on witness accounts, records and photographs.
Brand also faces a separate civil lawsuit in London brought by a different woman, who is seeking around £100,000 in damages.
Fallout since the verdicts
The Guardian reported that several UK publishers and retailers have moved to withdraw Brand’s books from sale. Pan Macmillan signed a £575,000 agreement with him in 2021 for two self-help books, neither of which was delivered, and ended the relationship after allegations emerged in 2023. It brought a £220,000 claim against him in 2025, which was settled earlier this year for an undisclosed sum.
