Prosecution tells jury Russell Brand accusers had no motive for fame

Prosecutors have told jurors that the six women accusing Russell Brand of rape and sexual assault had no reason to seek publicity or invent their accounts, as closing arguments continued at Southwark Crown Court. Riel Karmy-Jones KC said the women had been “haunted” by their alleged encounters with Brand and had come forward after recognising that they were not alone. She told the jury that none knew the others and that they had not sought fame, compensation or a role in a documentary.

Brand, 51, denies seven charges relating to alleged offences said to have taken place over a decade from 1999. The case involves three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and an allegation of attempted indecent assault. An earlier indecent-assault allegation was changed to the attempted charge on Tuesday.

The prosecutor rejected the suggestion that a 2023 Dispatches documentary had caused the women to reshape their memories. The Guardian reported that Karmy-Jones described the idea as a “magic force” that could have made six rational people “invent, reimagine, recharacterise, recast” their experiences. The BBC likewise reported that she said there was no such force in the documentary.

Karmy-Jones asked jurors to compare the accounts given by the complainants. She said several described Brand as initially charming before his manner changed, and referred to evidence that he continued despite requests to stop. The prosecution also argued that Brand’s later contact with some women after the alleged assaults was consistent with “gaslighting”.

The prosecutor focused particularly on the account of the youngest witness, who was in her early 20s when she alleges that Brand raped her at his London townhouse after they met at the Hammersmith Apollo in 2009. Brand denies the allegations, and the claims remain matters for the jury to determine. The defence has presented competing arguments.

Earlier on Friday, Polly Dyer told jurors that Brand had pleaded guilty and been fined for possessing cannabis in 1995, but had no other convictions, cautions, reprimands or warnings. The judge, Mr Justice Bennathan, reminded jurors that they would have rival arguments to consider. Karmy-Jones also addressed evidence from Brand’s wife, Laura, who described him as kind and a wonderful father.

The prosecutor called her evidence brave but noted that she was not with Brand when most of the alleged offences are said to have occurred. She also told jurors that Brand may now be a different person from the man he was between 1999 and 2009. Brand’s barrister, Ian Winter KC, is due to give the defence closing speech on Monday.

Brand has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The jury will ultimately have to assess the competing accounts and decide whether the prosecution has proved the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.