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

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.