Brand Jury Weighs Verdict After Three-Week Trial

The jury in the trial of actor Russell Brand began deliberating on Tuesday after a three-week presentation of evidence at Southwark Crown Court in London.

Judge Joel Bennathan instructed the twelve members of the jury that they must reach a unanimous decision before returning a verdict.

"I can only accept a verdict that is the verdict of all 12 of you," Bennathan told the panel.

The jurors spent roughly an hour in discussion before leaving the courtroom for the night. The judge warned them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the group.

Brand, who is currently on bail, attended court daily throughout the trial. He was accompanied by his wife, Laura Gallacher.

The trial centers on allegations from six women who do not know one another. They accuse Brand of sexual misconduct between 1999 and 2009.

Prosecutors described Brand as a sexual predator during that decade. They cited incidents that allegedly took place in hotel rooms, MTV offices in London, a bar restroom, a radio station, a recording studio, and his home.

Brand, 51, pleaded not guilty to three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault, and one count of attempted indecent assault.

During his testimony, Brand acknowledged an obsession with sex in his younger years but maintained that all encounters were consensual.

Defense lawyers argued that the credibility of the claimants was damaged by the delay in reporting. They noted that the women went to police years after the alleged events, following a 2023 documentary containing anonymous accusations.

Ian Winter, Brand’s lawyer, stated that the well of justice had been corrupted and contaminated by that documentary.

In a closing statement on Monday, Winter urged the jury to distinguish between Brand’s personal behavior and criminal intent. He argued that disrespect or rudeness during or after sex is not a crime under English law. Winter described Brand's extensive sexual history as unlawful in quantity but not in nature, calling the behavior disgusting, distasteful, and immoral, but irrelevant to the legal verdict.