Skip to the claims explorer

Fact Finder

Title card: The Russell Brand trial, the evidence and the verdicts

A jury found Russell Brand guilty on four of seven charges. Here is what it heard, and what it decided.

A London jury convicted the comedian of one rape and three sexual assaults, and acquitted him on three other counts. We set out the charges, the evidence reported in court, the defence case, the judge's directions and the limits of what the verdicts show.

By Last updated

Verdicts returned

Complainants are not named, as UK law requires. A jury found Brand guilty on four counts and not guilty on three; convictions can be appealed. At the verdicts the judge set sentencing for 9 November 2026.

  • 7Counts triedSix women; offences from 1999 to 2009
  • 4GuiltyOne rape, three sexual assault
  • 3Not guiltyTwo rape, one attempted indecent assault
  • 69Claims tracked
  • 25Sources

Verdicts by count

  1. Count 11999 · RapeNot guilty
  2. Count 22001 · Attempted indecent assaultNot guilty
  3. Count 32004 · Sexual assaultGuilty
  4. Count 42004 · RapeNot guilty
  5. Count 52004 or 2005 · Sexual assaultGuilty
  6. Count 62009 · RapeGuilty
  7. Count 72009 · Sexual assaultGuilty

We were not in court. This review uses police, government and published court reports; it does not re-try the case.

About this format and its limits

Fact Finder is a different kind of Unbiased Headlines piece. It is a review of one case, not a news report of the day. For each charge it separates three things: what each side alleged, what the court heard, and what the jury decided.

Limits. We were not in court. This review draws on the Metropolitan Police, the UK Attorney General's Office and published court reports. We have no transcript, no indictment and no access to evidence outside what was reported. Where a fact rests on one report, we say so. A jury verdict is a legal finding. This review does not re-try the case and does not replace the court's reasoning, which is not public.

Anonymity. The women who brought these charges have lifelong legal anonymity in the UK. We refer to them by number, give only the year of each charge, and omit details that could identify them.

Convictions can be appealed. Prosecution and defence speeches are arguments by lawyers, not evidence, and are labelled as such.

At a glance

  • Russell Brand, 51, pleaded not guilty to seven charges involving six women, in allegations covering 1999 to 2009. S2S5
  • A jury of eight men and four women at Southwark Crown Court returned unanimous verdicts on 5 November 2026 after about eight and a half hours of deliberation: guilty of one rape and three sexual assaults; not guilty of two rapes and one attempted indecent assault. S1S2S3
  • The judge refused bail and remanded Brand in custody, and set sentencing for 9 November 2026. S1S2S3
  • Brand denied all charges. Convictions can be appealed; no appeal has been reported. S2
Verdicts by count (count numbers as in the judge’s written questions to the jury) S1S2S3S4S5
CountYearChargeVerdict
1 (Complainant 1)1999RapeNot guilty
2 (Complainant 2)2001Attempted indecent assaultNot guilty
3 (Complainant 3)2004Sexual assaultGuilty
4 (Complainant 3)2004RapeNot guilty
5 (Complainant 4)2004 or 2005Sexual assaultGuilty
6 (Complainant 5)2009RapeGuilty
7 (Complainant 6)2009Sexual assaultGuilty

Count numbers follow the judge's written questions to the jury, as reported by PA (S20).

Timeline

  1. Count 1: Rape (Complainant 1) Alleged 1999. Verdict: not guilty. S2S3 The evidence on Count 1
  2. Count 2: Attempted indecent assault (Complainant 2) Alleged 2001. Verdict: not guilty. S2S3 The evidence on Count 2
  3. Count 3: Sexual assault (Complainant 3) Alleged 2004. Verdict: guilty. S2S3 The evidence on Count 3
  4. Count 4: Rape (Complainant 3) Alleged 2004. Verdict: not guilty. S2S4 The evidence on Count 4
  5. Count 5: Sexual assault (Complainant 4) Alleged 2004 or 2005. Verdict: guilty. S2S3 The evidence on Count 5
  6. Count 6: Rape (Complainant 5) Alleged 2009. Verdict: guilty. S1S2S3 The evidence on Count 6
  7. Count 7: Sexual assault (Complainant 6) Alleged 2009. Verdict: guilty. S2S3 The evidence on Count 7
  8. Allegations published Channel 4's Dispatches, The Times and The Sunday Times published allegations of sexual misconduct against Brand. The Attorney General's Office later reminded editors and social media users about the risk of contempt of court. S12S1S2 7 related claims: Investigation
  9. Police interviews begin Brand was interviewed by police four times, starting in November 2023, and gave prepared statements. S28S1 7 related claims: Investigation
  10. Trial opens at Southwark Crown Court The prosecutor was Riel Karmy-Jones KC; Brand was represented by Ian Winter KC. S5S2 8 related claims: Trial evidence
  11. Brand gives evidence He gave evidence for more than four hours. S4S8 8 related claims: Trial evidence
  12. Jury retires S10 6 related claims: Judge's directions
  13. Verdicts Guilty on four counts, not guilty on three. Bail refused. S1S2S3 3 related claims: Verdicts and next steps
  14. Sentencing date set The judge set sentencing for 9 November 2026. S1 3 related claims: Verdicts and next steps

The seven counts: the evidence and the verdicts

For each count: what the jury had to decide, the evidence each side put forward as reported from court, and what the verdict does and does not tell us. Complainants are not named, as UK law requires.

  1. Count 1: Rape, 1999 Not guilty
  2. Count 2: Attempted indecent assault, 2001 Not guilty
  3. Count 3: Sexual assault, 2004 Guilty
  4. Count 4: Rape, 2004 Not guilty
  5. Count 5: Sexual assault, 2004 or 2005 Guilty
  6. Count 6: Rape, 2009 Guilty
  7. Count 7: Sexual assault, 2009 Guilty

Count 1 Rape · 1999 ○ Not guilty

What the jury had to decide

According to the judge's written questions to the jury, as reported by PA, it was not in dispute that sex took place. The jury had to be sure that Complainant 1 did not consent, and that Brand knew she was not consenting or was reckless as to whether she was. S20

The prosecution's evidence

  • The jury saw her video-recorded police interview from 2023. She then gave evidence from behind a screen and was cross-examined. S13
  • A man who performed with Brand at the time said Brand told him that night he intended to have sex, seemed unsettled the next day, and later said he may have gone too far. He did not see the encounter, first went to police in 2025, and was cross-examined on the reliability of his account. S5S27
  • She said she took photographs of Brand that evening; they were referred to in court. S13
  • No contemporaneous record of the encounter itself (message, medical or forensic) was reported, and no complaint before 2023. Police said there was no CCTV or forensic evidence because the reports were non-recent. S1S13

The defence's case

  • In a prepared statement to police Brand denied the allegation. S5
  • In court he said he would have asked her repeatedly whether she was enjoying it. S21
  • His barrister argued she was "plainly attracted to him" and not a "naive and wilting flower", and that the 2023 documentary had shaped her account. She rejected this. S4S19

What the jury was told

The judge's general directions applied to every count. See the directions.

Evidence type breakdown

Documentary or recorded
Photographs she took that evening; no contemporaneous record of the encounter itself was reported.
Other witnesses
A man who was with Brand at the time (about his words, not the encounter).
Complainant testimony
Recorded 2023 police interview and live evidence.
Defence
Prepared statement; Brand's evidence; his barrister's arguments.

What the verdict tells us

The jury was not sure, to the criminal standard, of at least one required element. Brand is not guilty of this charge.

What it does not tell us

A jury gives no reasons. Reports do not say which question the jury was not sure about. A not guilty verdict is not a finding that the allegation was false.

Count 2 Attempted indecent assault · 2001 ○ Not guilty

What the jury had to decide

The jury had to be sure that Brand tried to drag Complainant 2 away, that he meant to touch her sexually without her consent, and that he knew she would not consent. S20

The prosecution's evidence

  • She gave evidence from behind a screen. S4
  • An item reported in one court report is omitted here because its only available link identifies the complainant. S4

The defence's case

  • Brand said he did not recall a struggle. Asked whether he intended any non-consensual assault, he said: "Of course not." S8S21
  • His barrister challenged her account in cross-examination. S4

What the jury was told

  • The charge was first put as indecent assault. During the trial the judge told jurors to find Brand not guilty of that wording because there was insufficient evidence for it, and the charge became attempted indecent assault. S17S26

The judge's general directions applied to every count. See the directions.

Evidence type breakdown

Documentary or recorded
Not reported.
Other witnesses
Reported, detail withheld (the only report available links to an identifying address).
Complainant testimony
Live evidence.
Defence
Brand's evidence; his barrister's cross-examination.

What the verdict tells us

The jury was not sure of at least one required element. Brand is not guilty of this charge.

What it does not tell us

A jury gives no reasons. Reports do not say why it was not sure. A not guilty verdict is not a finding that the allegation was false.

Count 3 Sexual assault · 2004 ● Guilty

What the jury had to decide

The jury had to be sure that Brand deliberately touched Complainant 3, that the touching was sexual, that she did not consent, and that he did not reasonably believe she consented. S20

The prosecution's evidence

  • She gave live evidence and was cross-examined. S23
  • A statement from another witness, read to the court, said she was very upset the next morning and gave a fuller account in 2023. S16
  • She said she told someone at the time. We do not repeat her words. S23
  • No document was reported. S4

The defence's case

  • Asked whether he grabbed her shortly after meeting her, Brand said: "Absolutely not." S21

What the jury was told

  • One outlet reports the judge told jurors to consider each charge separately. Counts 3 and 4 involve the same complainant and the same evening. S11

The judge's general directions applied to every count. See the directions.

Evidence type breakdown

Documentary or recorded
Not reported.
Other witnesses
A witness statement about the next morning.
Complainant testimony
Live evidence.
Defence
Brand's denial.

What the verdict tells us

The jury was sure of each question above. Brand is convicted of this offence. He denies it and can appeal.

What it does not tell us

A jury gives no reasons. Reports do not say which evidence persuaded it, or why it reached a different verdict on Count 4.

Count 4 Rape · 2004 ○ Not guilty

What the jury had to decide

The first question was whether the act happened at all. The jury also had to be sure that Complainant 3 did not consent and that Brand did not reasonably believe she consented. S20

The prosecution's evidence

  • She gave live evidence and was cross-examined. S23
  • A statement from another witness, read to the court, said she was very upset the next morning and gave a fuller account in 2023. S16
  • She said she told someone at the time. We do not repeat her words. S23
  • No document was reported. S4
  • One PA report says she gave evidence that for years she told people a version in which there was an incident but she got away before being raped. S23

The defence's case

  • Brand said it was "for fooling around", denied forcing her, and said he did not remember some details. S8S21
  • His barrister put to her that they had gone there consensually and abandoned the attempt. S23

What the jury was told

  • One outlet reports the judge told jurors to consider each charge separately. S11

The judge's general directions applied to every count. See the directions.

Evidence type breakdown

Documentary or recorded
Not reported.
Other witnesses
A witness statement about the next morning.
Complainant testimony
Live evidence, including earlier versions of her account.
Defence
Brand's evidence; his barrister's cross-examination.

What the verdict tells us

The jury was not sure of at least one required element. Brand is not guilty of this charge.

What it does not tell us

A jury gives no reasons. Reports do not say why the verdicts on Counts 3 and 4 differ. A not guilty verdict is not a finding that the allegation was false.

Count 5 Sexual assault · 2004 or 2005 ● Guilty

What the jury had to decide

The jury had to be sure that Brand deliberately touched Complainant 4 as alleged, that it was sexual, that she did not consent, and that he did not reasonably believe she consented. S20

The prosecution's evidence

  • She gave evidence from behind a screen, including that she did not report it at the time because of a culture of fear. S4S6
  • Reports do not say whether anyone else present gave evidence. S6
  • No document was reported. S6

The defence's case

  • Brand denied it. S17
  • His barrister questioned her about not reporting it at the time. S25

What the jury was told

The judge's general directions applied to every count. See the directions.

Evidence type breakdown

Documentary or recorded
Not reported.
Other witnesses
Not reported.
Complainant testimony
Live evidence.
Defence
Brand's denial; cross-examination on not reporting.

What the verdict tells us

The jury was sure of each question above. Brand is convicted of this offence. He denies it and can appeal.

What it does not tell us

A jury gives no reasons. Fewer kinds of evidence were reported on this count than on most others; reports do not say what persuaded the jury.

Count 6 Rape · 2009 ● Guilty

What the jury had to decide

According to the judge's written questions to the jury, as reported by PA, it was not in dispute that the act took place. The jury had to be sure that Complainant 5 did not consent and that Brand did not reasonably believe she consented. S20

The prosecution's evidence

  • The jury saw her video-recorded police interview, then heard her live evidence and cross-examination. S6S15
  • Brand confirmed in court that he had saved her number in his phone with letters and symbols, one of which he said meant "never, ever forget this individual". S4S17
  • The court heard of text messages afterwards, described from her account. Whether the messages themselves were produced was not reported, and reports differ on when they were sent. S5S7
  • Witnesses connected to her told the court what she said in the days afterwards; some statements were read to the court. S4S7
  • No medical record was reported as produced. S6

The defence's case

  • Brand said it was consensual, that she did not say no or ask him to stop, and that she never complained of pain. S18S21
  • He accepted his recollection included "small details that are inconsistent". S8
  • His barrister put to her that she consented and later regretted it; she denied it. In closing he argued she did not resist, scream or leave, and that Brand behaved normally afterwards. S15S19

What the jury was told

  • After the verdicts the judge said a conviction for rape inevitably brings a significant custodial term. S2S3

The judge's general directions applied to every count. See the directions.

Evidence type breakdown

Documentary or recorded
Phone entry (explained by Brand in court); text messages (described from her account).
Other witnesses
Witnesses to what she said in the days afterwards.
Complainant testimony
Recorded police interview and live evidence.
Defence
Brand's evidence; cross-examination; closing speech.

What the verdict tells us

The jury was sure of each question above. Brand is convicted of rape. He denies it and can appeal.

What it does not tell us

A jury gives no reasons. This count had the widest range of individual items reported (a recorded interview, a phone entry, messages and witnesses she told afterwards), but nothing reported says that decided the result.

Count 7 Sexual assault · 2009 ● Guilty

What the jury had to decide

The jury had to be sure that Brand deliberately made the contact alleged, that it was sexual, that Complainant 6 did not consent, and that he did not reasonably believe she consented. S20

The prosecution's evidence

  • She gave evidence from behind a screen. S6
  • A witness statement read to the court recorded what she had told that witness. S16
  • Whether anyone else present gave evidence was not reported. No document was reported. S16

The defence's case

  • Brand said he could not remember the day and denied any sexual purpose. S18S21

What the jury was told

The judge's general directions applied to every count. See the directions.

Evidence type breakdown

Documentary or recorded
Not reported.
Other witnesses
A statement recording what she had told that witness.
Complainant testimony
Live evidence.
Defence
Brand's evidence.

What the verdict tells us

The jury was sure of each question above. Brand is convicted of this offence. He denies it and can appeal.

What it does not tell us

A jury gives no reasons. Reports do not say what persuaded the jury.

Evidence

Which kinds of evidence were reported, by charge

How to read this. This chart shows which kinds of evidence were reported in court coverage. It is not a measure of how strong the evidence was. Jurors decide weight; one item can matter more than twenty. Counts are not comparable across charges, and a dot does not show that evidence was admitted for a particular purpose. Verdicts are the jury's findings. Sources: see list.

Which kinds of evidence were reported, by charge. Select a cell to filter the claims below.
DocumentaryOther witnessesComplainant testimonyDefence
Count 11999 · RapeNot guilty Reported: Count 1, Documentary. Go to the evidence on this countPhotographs she took that evening; no contemporaneous record of the encounter itself was reported. S13 Reported: Count 1, Other witnesses. Go to the evidence on this countA man who was with Brand at the time (about his words, not the encounter). S5S27 Reported: Count 1, Complainant testimony. Go to the evidence on this countRecorded 2023 police interview and live evidence. S13 Reported: Count 1, Defence. Go to the evidence on this countPrepared statement; Brand's evidence; his barrister's arguments. S5S21S4S19
Count 22001 · Attempted indecent assaultNot guilty Not reported: Count 2, Documentary. Go to the evidence on this count Reported: Count 2, Other witnesses. Go to the evidence on this countReported, detail withheld (the only report available links to an identifying address). S4 Reported: Count 2, Complainant testimony. Go to the evidence on this countLive evidence. S4 Reported: Count 2, Defence. Go to the evidence on this countBrand's evidence; his barrister's cross-examination. S8S21S4
Count 32004 · Sexual assaultGuilty Not reported: Count 3, Documentary. Go to the evidence on this count Reported: Count 3, Other witnesses. Go to the evidence on this countA witness statement about the next morning. S16 Reported: Count 3, Complainant testimony. Go to the evidence on this countLive evidence. S23 Reported: Count 3, Defence. Go to the evidence on this countBrand's denial. S21
Count 42004 · RapeNot guilty Not reported: Count 4, Documentary. Go to the evidence on this count Reported: Count 4, Other witnesses. Go to the evidence on this countA witness statement about the next morning. S16 Reported: Count 4, Complainant testimony. Go to the evidence on this countLive evidence, including earlier versions of her account. S23 Reported: Count 4, Defence. Go to the evidence on this countBrand's evidence; his barrister's cross-examination. S8S21S23
Count 52004 or 2005 · Sexual assaultGuilty Not reported: Count 5, Documentary. Go to the evidence on this count Not reported: Count 5, Other witnesses. Go to the evidence on this count Reported: Count 5, Complainant testimony. Go to the evidence on this countLive evidence. S4S6 Reported: Count 5, Defence. Go to the evidence on this countBrand's denial; cross-examination on not reporting. S17S25
Count 62009 · RapeGuilty Reported: Count 6, Documentary. Go to the evidence on this countPhone entry (explained by Brand in court); text messages (described from her account). S4S17S5S7 Reported: Count 6, Other witnesses. Go to the evidence on this countWitnesses to what she said in the days afterwards. S4S7 Reported: Count 6, Complainant testimony. Go to the evidence on this countRecorded police interview and live evidence. S6S15 Reported: Count 6, Defence. Go to the evidence on this countBrand's evidence; cross-examination; closing speech. S18S21S8S15S19
Count 72009 · Sexual assaultGuilty Not reported: Count 7, Documentary. Go to the evidence on this count Reported: Count 7, Other witnesses. Go to the evidence on this countA statement recording what she had told that witness. S16 Reported: Count 7, Complainant testimony. Go to the evidence on this countLive evidence. S6 Reported: Count 7, Defence. Go to the evidence on this countBrand's evidence. S18S21

● Reported: the cited court reports describe this type of evidence for the count. ○ Not reported: none described in the sources reviewed; this does not mean none existed. Defence includes Brand's testimony, his denial in interview and defence witnesses.

Claims

Each claim shows the kind of evidence behind it and how well it is sourced. Sourcing describes the reporting, not whether a claim is true. Open Details for who says so, excerpts and sources.

Showing 69 of 69 claims

Investigation 7 claims

  1. C1

    The Metropolitan Police said it began investigating after the September 2023 reports, set up a dedicated team, and was contacted by a number of women not known to each other.

    OfficialOfficial record1 source

    Details for claim C1
    Who says so
    Metropolitan Police
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Investigation
    “not known to each other”
    Metropolitan Police statement after the verdicts. S1

    Sources S1 Metropolitan Police, 5 Nov 2026

  2. C2

    Police said they traced and spoke to more than 100 witnesses and reviewed more than 1,400 documents.

    OfficialOfficial record1 source

    Details for claim C2
    Who says so
    Metropolitan Police
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Investigation

    Sources S1 Metropolitan Police, 5 Nov 2026

  3. C3

    Police said they did not have CCTV or forensic evidence because the reports were non-recent, and that digital enquiries were limited by the passage of time.

    OfficialOfficial record1 source

    Details for claim C3
    Who says so
    Metropolitan Police
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Investigation

    Sources S1 Metropolitan Police, 5 Nov 2026

  4. C4

    Police said they obtained historical floor plans and photographs of locations linked to the reports, and reviewed Brand's stand-up shows, interviews, podcasts and books to build timelines and test accounts.

    OfficialOfficial record1 source

    Details for claim C4
    Who says so
    Metropolitan Police
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Investigation

    Sources S1 Metropolitan Police, 5 Nov 2026

  5. C5

    Brand was interviewed by police four times. Police and court reports say he gave prepared statements denying wrongdoing and otherwise answered no comment.

    OfficialMultiple reports3 sources

    Details for claim C5
    Who says so
    Metropolitan Police; court reports
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Investigation

    Sources S1 Metropolitan Police, 5 Nov 2026 S28 Daily Mirror, 5 Nov 2026 S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026

  6. C6

    Police said Brand repeatedly claimed he did not recognise the women involved. Police said the prosecution described his later recollection as selective memory.

    ArgumentOfficial record1 source

    Details for claim C6
    Who says so
    Metropolitan Police
    Status
    Argument
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Investigation

    A police characterisation, not a finding.

    “repeatedly claimed he did not recognise the women involved”
    Metropolitan Police statement. S1

    Sources S1 Metropolitan Police, 5 Nov 2026

  7. C7

    The Met release also says police took more than 400 witness statements.

    DisputedOfficial record1 source

    Details for claim C7
    Who says so
    Metropolitan Police
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Disputed / unverified
    Topic
    Investigation

    Sources S1 Metropolitan Police, 5 Nov 2026

Count 1 6 claims

  1. C8

    The prosecution said Brand raped Complainant 1 after meeting her at an event. She said she told him no.

    ArgumentMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C8
    Who says so
    Prosecution
    Status
    Allegation
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Count 1

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026

  2. C9

    Complainant 1 gave evidence.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C9
    Who says so
    Complainant 1
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 1

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  3. C10

    A prosecution witness gave evidence about things Brand said around the time. The witness was cross-examined about the reliability of his account.

    WitnessSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C10
    Who says so
    A prosecution witness
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Other witness
    Topic
    Count 1

    Sources S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026

  4. C11

    In a prepared statement Brand denied the allegation.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C11
    Who says so
    Brand (prepared statement)
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 1

    Sources S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026

  5. C12

    His barrister argued that Complainant 1 was attracted to him. That is a defence argument; attraction is not consent, and the jury decided the count.

    ArgumentSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C12
    Who says so
    Defence (Ian Winter KC)
    Status
    Argument
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Count 1

    Defence argument, not evidence.

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  6. C13

    The jury found Brand not guilty on Count 1 (rape, 1999).

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C13
    Who says so
    Jury verdict
    Status
    Finding
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Count 1

    Sources S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S3 CBS News (reporting BBC and AP), 5 Nov 2026

Count 2 6 claims

  1. C14

    The prosecution said Brand grabbed Complainant 2 by the arm and tried to pull her into another room.

    ArgumentSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C14
    Who says so
    Prosecution
    Status
    Allegation
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Count 2

    Sources S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026

  2. C15

    Complainant 2 described the incident to the court.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C15
    Who says so
    Complainant 2
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 2

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  3. C16

    According to the prosecution opening, she mentioned it at the time but never reported it formally.

    ArgumentSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C16
    Who says so
    Prosecution opening
    Status
    Allegation
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Count 2

    Sources S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026

  4. C17

    Asked about it in cross-examination, Brand said he did not recall a struggle.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C17
    Who says so
    Brand (cross-examination)
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 2

    Sources S8 The Guardian, 28 Oct 2026

  5. C18

    The jury found Brand not guilty on Count 2 (attempted indecent assault, 2001).

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C18
    Who says so
    Jury verdict
    Status
    Finding
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Count 2

    Sources S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S3 CBS News (reporting BBC and AP), 5 Nov 2026

  6. C19

    The charge was originally one of indecent assault and was amended to attempted indecent assault during the trial.

    OfficialSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C19
    Who says so
    Court reports
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Count 2

    Single-sourced.

    Sources S10 The Guardian, 3 Nov 2026

Count 3 5 claims

  1. C20

    The prosecution said Brand sexually assaulted Complainant 3.

    ArgumentSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C20
    Who says so
    Prosecution
    Status
    Allegation
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Count 3

    Sources S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026

  2. C21

    Complainant 3 gave evidence.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C21
    Who says so
    Court reports
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 3

    Sources S8 The Guardian, 28 Oct 2026

  3. C22

    Complainant 3 told the court she told someone at the time, and that over the years she told others a version of events.

    TestimonyMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C22
    Who says so
    Complainant 3
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 3

    Sources S23 PA Media (Falmouth Packet) S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  4. C23

    Brand denied the allegation, and said he did not remember when asked about something he was alleged to have said.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C23
    Who says so
    Brand (evidence in court)
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 3

    Sources S8 The Guardian, 28 Oct 2026

  5. C24

    The jury found Brand guilty on Count 3 (sexual assault, 2004).

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C24
    Who says so
    Jury verdict
    Status
    Finding
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Count 3

    Sources S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S3 CBS News (reporting BBC and AP), 5 Nov 2026

Count 4 3 claims

  1. C25

    The prosecution said that after the first incident Brand raped Complainant 3.

    ArgumentSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C25
    Who says so
    Prosecution
    Status
    Allegation
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Count 4

    Sources S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026

  2. C27

    The jury found Brand not guilty on Count 4 (rape, 2004). It returned different verdicts on two charges involving the same complainant on the same evening.

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C27
    Who says so
    Jury verdict
    Status
    Finding
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Count 4

    Sources S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  3. C28

    The jury had separate written questions for each count, as reported by PA. The reports do not say why the verdicts on Counts 3 and 4 differ.

    OfficialSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C28
    Who says so
    Judge's written questions (PA report)
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Count 4

    Sources S20 The Independent (PA)

Count 5 4 claims

  1. C29

    The prosecution said Brand sexually assaulted Complainant 4.

    ArgumentMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C29
    Who says so
    Prosecution
    Status
    Allegation
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Count 5

    Sources S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026 S6 The Guardian, 20 Oct 2026

  2. C30

    Complainant 4 gave evidence from behind a screen and said she did not report it at the time because of a culture of fear.

    TestimonyMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C30
    Who says so
    Complainant 4
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 5

    Reports do not describe other witnesses or documents for this count.

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S6 The Guardian, 20 Oct 2026

  3. C31

    Brand denied all charges.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C31
    Who says so
    Brand
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 5

    Sources S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  4. C32

    The jury found Brand guilty on Count 5 (sexual assault, 2004 or 2005).

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C32
    Who says so
    Jury verdict
    Status
    Finding
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Count 5

    Sources S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S3 CBS News (reporting BBC and AP), 5 Nov 2026

Count 6 8 claims

  1. C33

    The prosecution said Brand raped Complainant 5, ignoring requests to stop.

    ArgumentMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C33
    Who says so
    Prosecution
    Status
    Allegation
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Count 6

    Sources S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026 S6 The Guardian, 20 Oct 2026

  2. C36

    Complainant 5 gave evidence.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C36
    Who says so
    Court reports
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 6

    Sources S6 The Guardian, 20 Oct 2026

  3. C34

    The complainant's video-recorded police interview was played to the jury.

    DocumentarySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C34
    Who says so
    Court reports
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Documentary, physical or recorded
    Topic
    Count 6

    A recorded interview records her account; it is not independent of it.

    Sources S6 The Guardian, 20 Oct 2026

  4. C37

    The court heard of text messages between Brand and the complainant after the event, described from her account. Whether the messages themselves were produced was not reported.

    TestimonyMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C37
    Who says so
    Court reports
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 6

    The date of the messages is reported inconsistently (the year after, or the summer after), so we do not date them.

    Sources S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026 S7 The Guardian, 22 Oct 2026

  5. C38

    The prosecution called witnesses on this count.

    WitnessSingle report2 sources

    Details for claim C38
    Who says so
    Court reports
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Other witness
    Topic
    Count 6

    Sources S7 The Guardian, 22 Oct 2026 S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  6. C39

    One court report says witnesses described what she told them shortly after, and that some accounts were read to the court as statements.

    WitnessSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C39
    Who says so
    Court reports
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Other witness
    Topic
    Count 6

    Reports do not say which legal route applied to each account. We describe them as evidence the court heard of what she said at the time and draw no legal conclusion.

    Sources S7 The Guardian, 22 Oct 2026

  7. C42

    Brand testified and denied any non-consensual act.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C42
    Who says so
    Brand (evidence in court)
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 6

    Sources S8 The Guardian, 28 Oct 2026

  8. C43

    The jury found Brand guilty on Count 6 (rape, 2009).

    OfficialMultiple reports3 sources

    Details for claim C43
    Who says so
    Jury verdict
    Status
    Finding
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Count 6

    Sources S1 Metropolitan Police, 5 Nov 2026 S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S3 CBS News (reporting BBC and AP), 5 Nov 2026

Count 7 5 claims

  1. C44

    The prosecution said Brand sexually assaulted Complainant 6.

    ArgumentMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C44
    Who says so
    Prosecution
    Status
    Allegation
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Count 7

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S6 The Guardian, 20 Oct 2026

  2. C45

    Complainant 6 gave evidence.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C45
    Who says so
    Complainant 6
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 7

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  3. C46

    Complainant 6 said she reported it to someone at the time.

    TestimonyMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C46
    Who says so
    Complainant 6
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Count 7

    Sources S5 The Guardian, 14 Oct 2026 S6 The Guardian, 20 Oct 2026

  4. C47

    One person she told recalled what she had said.

    WitnessSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C47
    Who says so
    A prosecution witness
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Other witness
    Topic
    Count 7

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  5. C48

    The jury found Brand guilty on Count 7 (sexual assault, 2009).

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C48
    Who says so
    Jury verdict
    Status
    Finding
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Count 7

    Sources S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S3 CBS News (reporting BBC and AP), 5 Nov 2026

Trial evidence 8 claims

  1. C49

    Complainants gave evidence, some from behind a screen. Reports describe pointed cross-examination of some of them, including questions about why they had not resisted, shouted, left or reported earlier.

    TestimonyMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C49
    Who says so
    Court reports
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Trial evidence

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S6 The Guardian, 20 Oct 2026

  2. C50

    The judge intervened at points, including to say a question about the #MeToo movement involved a bit of a generalisation.

    OfficialSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C50
    Who says so
    Court reports
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Trial evidence
    “a bit of a generalisation”
    Judge's remark as reported from court. S4

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  3. C51

    A former personal assistant told the court in a statement that Brand's behaviour was normalised and dismissed by those around him.

    WitnessSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C51
    Who says so
    A former personal assistant (statement)
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Other witness
    Topic
    Trial evidence

    The report does not tie this to a particular count.

    “normalised and dismissed”
    Witness statement as reported from court. S4

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  4. C52

    Brand gave evidence for more than four hours on 28 October. He said consent was fundamental, essential, necessary and, in many ways, more important than sex itself.

    TestimonyMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C52
    Who says so
    Brand (evidence in court)
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Trial evidence
    “fundamental, essential, necessary and, indeed, in many ways more important than sex itself”
    Brand's evidence as reported live from court. S8

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S8 The Guardian, 28 Oct 2026

  5. C53

    He said he was obsessed with sex when young, had misused fame foolishly and agreed he was very comfortable letting it facilitate sexual access, which he said was wrong.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C53
    Who says so
    Brand (evidence in court)
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Trial evidence
    “facilitate sexual access”
    Brand's evidence as reported live from court. S8

    Sources S8 The Guardian, 28 Oct 2026

  6. C54

    He denied non-consensual conduct and said some of the recollection had escalated and contained small details that are inconsistent.

    TestimonySingle report1 source

    Details for claim C54
    Who says so
    Brand (evidence in court)
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Trial evidence
    “small details that are inconsistent”
    Brand's evidence as reported live from court. S8

    Sources S8 The Guardian, 28 Oct 2026

  7. C55

    Brand said he struggled to find anyone to give evidence for him. His wife gave evidence for him.

    WitnessMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C55
    Who says so
    Defence witnesses
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Other witness
    Topic
    Trial evidence

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S8 The Guardian, 28 Oct 2026

  8. C40

    The judge pointed to evidence from Brand's wife and former partners describing positive attributes, according to court reports.

    TestimonyMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C40
    Who says so
    Judge's directions (court reports)
    Status
    Evidence reported
    Evidence type
    Party testimony
    Topic
    Trial evidence

    Sources S29 Daily Star, 30 Oct 2026 S11 The Eye of Media

Arguments 8 claims

  1. C56

    Consent and memory: Brand said some encounters were consensual and some he could not remember, and that accounts had been reimagined or unfavourably reframed after the 2023 reports.

    ArgumentSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C56
    Who says so
    Defence
    Status
    Argument
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Arguments
    “unfavourably reframed”
    Defence case as reported. S2

    Sources S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  2. C57

    Delay: his barrister said the women reported only years after the events and spoke of monstrous delays.

    ArgumentSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C57
    Who says so
    Defence (Ian Winter KC)
    Status
    Argument
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Arguments
    “monstrous delays”
    Defence closing speech as reported. S10

    Sources S10 The Guardian, 3 Nov 2026

  3. C58

    The 2023 coverage: his barrister said the documentary and press reports had poisoned the wells of justice and made a fair trial impossible.

    ArgumentMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C58
    Who says so
    Defence (Ian Winter KC)
    Status
    Argument
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Arguments
    “poisoned the wells”
    Defence closing speech as reported. S10

    Sources S10 The Guardian, 3 Nov 2026 S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  4. C59

    The prosecution said the women had not been driven by a magic force of media reporting and had come forward seeking closure.

    ArgumentSingle report2 sources

    Details for claim C59
    Who says so
    Prosecution
    Status
    Argument
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Arguments

    Sources S20 The Independent (PA) S25 PA Media (Kilburn Times)

  5. C60

    Behaviour at the time: the defence argued that not one of the complainants resisted, screamed or even tried to leave.

    ArgumentSingle report2 sources

    Details for claim C60
    Who says so
    Defence (Ian Winter KC)
    Status
    Argument
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Arguments
    “not one of them resisted or screamed or even tried to leave”
    Defence argument as reported. S4

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  6. C61

    The prosecution asked whether jurors thought a complainant was being blamed for what happened.

    ArgumentSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C61
    Who says so
    Prosecution
    Status
    Argument
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Arguments
    “being blamed for what happened”
    Prosecution argument as reported. S4

    Sources S4 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026

  7. C62

    Number of charges: the defence asked why only three rapes were alleged in ten years, given the number of women Brand had slept with.

    ArgumentSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C62
    Who says so
    Defence
    Status
    Argument
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Arguments

    Sources S10 The Guardian, 3 Nov 2026

  8. C63

    The prosecution said six women who did not know each other described a similar pattern, with charm followed by a sudden change in manner, and that none had sought publicity or made compensation claims.

    ArgumentMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C63
    Who says so
    Prosecution
    Status
    Argument
    Evidence type
    Not evidence: argument or allegation
    Topic
    Arguments

    The reports do not say whether the jury was directed that it could use this similarity between accounts as evidence on other counts.

    Sources S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S10 The Guardian, 3 Nov 2026

Judge's directions 6 claims

  1. C64

    Jurors were given a written route to verdict: 22 questions across the seven counts, each asking whether they were sure of an element of the charge.

    OfficialSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C64
    Who says so
    Judge's written questions (PA report)
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Judge's directions

    Sources S20 The Independent (PA)

  2. C65

    The verdicts had to be unanimous.

    OfficialSingle report1 source

    Details for claim C65
    Who says so
    Judge Bennathan
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Judge's directions
    “I can only accept a verdict from all 12 of you that is a unanimous verdict”
    Judge's direction as reported. S10

    Sources S10 The Guardian, 3 Nov 2026

  3. C66

    On delay, the judge told jurors they must not assume that late complaints were untrue, and that a complaint is not necessarily true just because it was made immediately.

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C66
    Who says so
    Judge's directions (court reports)
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Judge's directions

    Sources S29 Daily Star, 30 Oct 2026 S11 The Eye of Media

  4. C68

    The judge told jurors that Brand's effective good character was not a defence to the charges but should be taken into account.

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C68
    Who says so
    Judge's directions (court reports)
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Judge's directions

    Sources S29 Daily Star, 30 Oct 2026 S11 The Eye of Media

  5. C69

    The judge told jurors that Brand had not told police the accounts he now relied on for the three rape allegations, and that this may harm his defence only if they reached certain conclusions about why.

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C69
    Who says so
    Judge's directions (court reports)
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Judge's directions

    Sources S28 Daily Mirror, 5 Nov 2026 S11 The Eye of Media

  6. C70

    Jurors were told to decide the case on the evidence heard and seen in court.

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C70
    Who says so
    Judge's directions (court reports)
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Judge's directions

    Sources S29 Daily Star, 30 Oct 2026 S11 The Eye of Media

Verdicts and next steps 3 claims

  1. C71

    After a trial of about four weeks at Southwark Crown Court, a jury of eight men and four women returned unanimous verdicts on Thursday 5 November 2026. It deliberated for about eight and a half hours.

    OfficialMultiple reports3 sources

    Details for claim C71
    Who says so
    Jury verdict
    Status
    Finding
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Verdicts and next steps

    Sources S1 Metropolitan Police, 5 Nov 2026 S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S3 CBS News (reporting BBC and AP), 5 Nov 2026

  2. C72

    The judge refused bail and remanded Brand in custody, saying a conviction for rape inevitably brings a significant custodial term.

    OfficialMultiple reports2 sources

    Details for claim C72
    Who says so
    Judge Bennathan
    Status
    Finding
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Verdicts and next steps
    “a significant custodial term”
    Judge's remarks as reported. S2

    Sources S2 The Guardian, 5 Nov 2026 S3 CBS News (reporting BBC and AP), 5 Nov 2026

  3. C73

    The judge set sentencing for Monday 9 November 2026.

    OfficialOfficial record1 source

    Details for claim C73
    Who says so
    Metropolitan Police
    Status
    Context
    Evidence type
    Official finding or record
    Topic
    Verdicts and next steps

    Sources S1 Metropolitan Police, 5 Nov 2026

How to read the evidence

Lawyers and courts group evidence by kind. Press reports describe what the court heard and rarely state the legal route by which each item was admitted. We use four groups: documentary, recorded or physical evidence; other witnesses; complainants' testimony; and defence evidence. Counts of items are not a measure of weight. Jurors decide how much each item matters.

Not reported does not mean did not exist. It means the reports we reviewed do not describe it. S1

Victims' Commissioner Claire Waxman said after the trial that the idea that rape victims must scream, resist or report immediately is a rape myth. Her comment is an opinion about attitudes and not a finding about this case. S2

The reports we reviewed do not say by which legal route each witness’s evidence was admitted, so we do not say.

What the verdicts do and do not show

What they show. A jury was sure, on four counts, that the prosecution had proved each element of the charge. It was not sure on three. A verdict of not guilty does not mean a jury found the allegation false; it means the charge was not proved to the required standard. Conviction on the rape count and the three sexual assault counts is a legal finding and can be appealed.

  • No reasons. The verdicts do not explain the jury's reasoning. Juries do not give reasons, and the law bars reporting of their deliberations.
  • No single deciding kind of evidence. Conviction came on a count with substantial reported supporting material (Count 6) and on counts where the reports describe no documentary evidence (3, 5, 7). Acquittals came on the earliest counts and on one count arising from the same evening as a conviction. This is an observation of the reports. It is not a rule about why verdicts fell as they did.
  • Seven counts only. This page covers only the seven counts tried at Southwark Crown Court.

What is not known

  • Sentence. At the verdicts the judge set sentencing for 9 November 2026 and said a custodial term was inevitable. S1S2S3
  • Appeal. Convictions can be appealed. No appeal has been reported.
  • Presumption of innocence. On Counts 1, 2 and 4 the jury returned not guilty verdicts, so Brand is not guilty of those charges. On Counts 3, 5, 6 and 7 he was convicted; he denies them and has the right to appeal.
  • Not public. The indictment, the court's legal rulings on what evidence could be heard, the full summing-up and the sentencing remarks.
  • Judge's directions. We did not find a full published summing-up. The written questions the jury had to answer and parts of the directions are reported; whether the jury could use evidence on one count when deciding another is not reported.
  • Gaps in the reports. For Count 5, reports do not describe other witnesses, and whether people present gave evidence is not reported.

Sources (25)

  1. S1
    Metropolitan Police Russell Brand convicted of rape and other sexual offencesnews.met.police.uk (opens in a new tab)
  2. S2
    The Guardian Russell Brand faces 'significant' prison term for rape and sexual assaulttheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  3. S3
    CBS News (reporting BBC and AP) Russell Brand found guilty of rape and sexual assault at trial in Londoncbsnews.com (opens in a new tab)
  4. S4
    The Guardian Flashbulbs, lies and victim blaming: how Russell Brand's trial unfoldedtheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  5. S5
    The Guardian Prosecution opening reporttheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  6. S6
    The Guardian Russell Brand told woman to 'clear up the mess you've made'theguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  7. S7
    The Guardian Russell Brand raped woman even though she screamed in pain, court hearstheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  8. S8
    The Guardian Live blog: Brand gives evidencetheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
Show all 25 sources
  1. S10
    The Guardian Jury in Russell Brand rape and sexual assault trial retires to consider verdictstheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  2. S11
    The Eye of MediaJudge's directions place six women's allegations under scrutiny as case reaches final stagetheeyeofmedia.com (opens in a new tab) Single outletSingle outlet. Its account of the judge's directions has not been cross-checked against a transcript.
  3. S12
    Attorney General's OfficeMedia Advisory Notice: Russell Brandgov.uk (opens in a new tab)
  4. S13
    The Guardian Court report: first complainant's evidencetheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  5. S15
    The Guardian Court report: cross-examination, 21 Octobertheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  6. S16
    The Guardian Court report: statements read to the court, 26 Octobertheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  7. S17
    The Guardian Court report: Brand gives evidencetheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  8. S18
    The Guardian Court report: Brand's evidence, key passagestheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  9. S19
    The Guardian Court report: defence closing speechtheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  10. S20
    The Independent (PA)The questions the jury had to answer (judge's written route to verdict)the-independent.com (opens in a new tab)
  11. S21
    The Independent (PA) Court report: Brand's evidence, count by countthe-independent.com (opens in a new tab)
  12. S23
    PA Media (Falmouth Packet)Court report: third complainant cross-examinedfalmouthpacket.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
  13. S25
    PA Media (Kilburn Times)Court report: prosecution closing speechkilburntimes.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
  14. S26
    Courthouse News Russell Brand convicted of rape, sexual assault in UKcourthousenews.com (opens in a new tab)
  15. S27
    The Guardian Live report, 14 Octobertheguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
  16. S28
    Daily Mirror Russell Brand's statements to police in 2023 and 2024mirror.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
  17. S29
    Daily Star Court report: judge's legal directions, 30 Octoberdailystar.co.uk (opens in a new tab)

Updates and corrections

  • Published.
  • Final check: removed items that rested on a single report, and narrowed others to what at least two reports or an official source support.

Tell us if you find an error. We will correct it and note the change here. Corrections policy · Contact

Source