Russell Brand Found Guilty as Old Warnings and Industry Failures Resurface

A jury has found Russell Brand guilty of rape and three counts of sexual assault, ending his criminal trial and reopening questions about the culture that allowed his career to flourish.

On 5 November, a jury at Southwark Crown Court convicted the comedian and former presenter of offences against four women between 2004 and 2009. The jury also acquitted Brand, who denied the charges, of two further counts of rape and one count of attempted indecent assault.

The judge remanded Brand in custody. According to the Metropolitan Police, the court will sentence him on Monday, 9 November. The judge has indicated that he faces a prison sentence.

After the verdict, comedian Katherine Ryan described her reaction as a mixture of “grief and relief”. Her words capture something that coverage of a high-profile conviction can overlook: a verdict may bring relief, but it cannot undo the harm the women suffered or the time that passed before the case reached court.

The women who came forward faced the pressure of giving evidence in a case involving a famous and influential man. Their courage deserves to remain at the centre of this story.

The warnings

The verdict has also brought renewed attention to the 2023 investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches, which examined allegations about Brand’s behaviour.

Comedian Daniel Sloss spoke in the 2023 documentary about rumours and warnings he had heard within the comedy world. In a separate podcast appearance the previous year, he said he knew things about Brand that he could not repeat and did not consider him a good man.

The question for me is how an industry responds when concerns circulate about someone with power. Who listens? Who acts? And what happens to the people who risk their careers by speaking?

Those questions have not disappeared with Brand’s conviction. Television insiders told The Guardian that misogyny and sexism remain problems in the industry, with some workers fearing they will be seen as troublemakers if they complain about a celebrity.

A BBC review found that staff had felt unable to raise complaints about Brand’s inappropriate behaviour while he worked there between 2006 and 2008.

A clip that looks different now

An old BBC Radio 2 exchange between Brand and Jimmy Savile has also resurfaced. In the 2007 clip, Brand offers to bring his assistant to give Savile a massage and asks what she should wear. Savile replies that he would prefer her to wear nothing, and Brand responds that this would not be a problem.

The exchange was presented as a joke. Hearing it now, knowing what later became public about Savile’s abuse, I find it deeply disturbing. I am also struck by how casually a woman was made the subject of the conversation.

Hearing the exchange now is disturbing. Brand and Savile laughed as they discussed sending a woman to give Savile a massage, with her body reduced to part of the joke. It is a reminder of the casual sexism that could be broadcast as entertainment—and of how easily women’s dignity was treated as expendable.

Consent and the courtroom

The trial also prompted debate about how women’s responses to sexual assault are discussed in court. In his closing speech, Brand’s barrister, Ian Winter KC, questioned why complainants had not screamed, kicked out or otherwise physically resisted. I find that troubling. People do not all react to fear or shock in the same way, and the absence of a fight should not be treated as proof of consent.

Winter also argued that reporting about the allegations had affected the fairness of the case. After the verdict, he was reported to have confronted Sunday Times journalist Rosamund Urwin, who worked on the investigation.

A defence lawyer’s job is to challenge the prosecution’s case. The jury nevertheless heard the evidence and convicted Brand on four counts, while acquitting him on three others.

What happens next?

Brand’s sentencing will be the next major development. But the wider questions will remain after it. The Crown Prosecution Service said Brand had used his celebrity status to commit sexual crimes. Police praised the courage and determination of the women who reported him.

Broadcasters, production companies and the wider entertainment industry must examine how they handle complaints, whether staff feel safe reporting misconduct and whether they allow fame to shield powerful people from scrutiny. Will these institutions listen when women speak—and act before another case reaches a courtroom?