The woman, 21 at the time of the alleged attack in 2009, was cross-examined at Southwark Crown Court. Brand, 51, denies all seven charges.
A woman who accuses Russell Brand of raping her at his Hampstead home in 2009 has told a jury she felt “degraded” and carried guilt and shame for years afterwards. Recorded police interviews with Brand’s youngest accuser were played at Southwark Crown Court on Wednesday, and she was then cross-examined. Brand faces three counts of rape, three of sexual assault and one of indecent assault, involving six women. He denies every charge. The complainants have lifelong anonymity, and the woman cannot be named.
What she told police
The woman described herself as a “massive Russell Brand fan” who “adored” him when they met at the Hammersmith Apollo. The court had heard on Tuesday that she was chosen for a threesome backstage but decided against intercourse because she had a boyfriend. A few days later, after splitting up with her partner, she agreed to meet Brand at his Hampstead home, understanding that this time they would have sex.
Jurors heard that the encounter began consensually but, she alleges, became a rape when Brand began anal sex without warning. She told the court she was in pain, struggling to breathe and repeatedly asked him: “Can you stop, can you stop, can you stop?” She said he later told her to “clear up the mess that you’ve made”. She recalled him turning on the television and taking a phone call before leaving for a performance.
In a police interview played to the jury, she said she later bumped into Brand at the Edinburgh Festival and received a “random” text from him. She said she asked: “Why are you even messaging me?” and that he replied: “Because you are dirty and I want to push you further.” She said she texted back: “I think you’ve pushed me far enough. You treated me like an animal.” She alleges he replied immediately: “I’m sorry.”
She said the exchange took her back to how she felt after the alleged attack. “I felt completely degraded and like I’d been treated like an animal, like a piece of meat,” she told police. “It was horrible, it really upset me. I did not want to see him. I did not want to have any interaction with him.”
Cross-examination
Brand’s barrister, Ian Winter KC, repeatedly put it to her that the whole encounter was consensual, and suggested her judgment was “clouded” because she idolised Brand. The woman became emotional. “I didn’t agree to do it. You’re not here to discuss my morality. This is criminality,” she said. “I made it very clear I was going to have consensual vaginal sex with a condom. I made it clear what was consensual and what wasn’t.”
She added: “I did have a partner I really loved, and I made a huge mistake. I carried that feeling of guilt and shame… for exactly the reason that you are doing right here, that I brought it on myself.” She also said: “Just because you go somewhere willingly and the outcome in the end is not consensual, it’s a different scenario.”
The court heard earlier that she had been told to shower and brush her teeth before the encounter. Asked how she felt during the consensual sex, she said: “I don’t think I enjoyed it, not because I didn’t feel I had consented to it. I felt really uncomfortable.”
According to Sky News, the Independent and AOL, as set out in the research notes, the defence also:
- suggested Brand contacted her several times after the alleged incident to arrange another encounter, which she said she could not remember. The defence’s suggestion has not been shown to be backed by messages produced and authenticated in court.
- challenged her over why her text did not explicitly accuse him of rape. She rejected that and said she was being told what she should have said.
- referred to Brand’s sexual reputation, including The Sun’s “Shagger of the Year” title, and suggested she knew he had many partners. She acknowledged knowing something of his reputation, but disputed that it meant she had agreed to every sexual act.
- questioned whether her distress was chiefly about the risk of a sexually transmitted infection. She accepted she had feared HIV, but said that even after negative tests she remained distressed because she believed a sexual act had happened without her consent.
In re-examination, prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC asked whether she had agreed to anal sex or discussed it beforehand. She said she had not, that she had no warning and that she asked him to stop. She said Brand behaved as though nothing unusual had happened afterwards, and that this did not change what she says occurred. These exchanges are not findings of fact.
The trial
Sky News reported that the last of the six complainants finished giving evidence on Wednesday afternoon, and the jury was dismissed for the day. The trial resumes at 10.30am on Thursday 22 October. Further witnesses, evidence and legal arguments may follow. No verdict has been reached.
