Inside the courtroom, Russell Brand was a shadow of his flamboyant self. He knew his game was up

Ushering his wife out of a blacked out Mercedes into a throng of photographers on the first day of hearings at London’s Southwark Crown Court last month, the dubious basis of Russell Brand’s defence should have been obvious.

Wearing a lemon-yellow suit and a large pair of tortoiseshell sunglasses, the waiting media pack were so unfamiliar with Laura Brand that, at first, no one was certain who she was. But it soon emerged that the 39-year-old, with whom he shares three young children, was the only witness prepared to stand up in court to fight back against the multiple rape and sexual assault allegations at her husband’s doorstep.

On Thursday, Ms Brand left court alone as her husband was remanded in custody after a jury panel of eight men and four women took less than nine hours to convict the 51-year-old of four counts against four women.

Before the verdicts were delivered, the comedian, 51, told his wife “I love you” from inside the glass-panelled dock, where the door – which had previously been left open – was locked behind him. He showed no emotion and kept his head held high as he was led to the cells by dock officers.

The panel of eight men and four women found him guilty of anally raping one fan and sexually assaulting three other women as he rose to fame. He was acquitted of two other counts of rape and one of attempted indecent assault.

Brand, now one of the world’s most notorious convicted rapists, is expected to be condemned to years behind bars when he is sentenced on Monday – and more allegations could follow.

Police are already investigating the celebrity over alleged rapes on two more women and detectives believe the guilty verdicts will prompt others to come forward, as the true extent of his sexual past – which he had long insisted was “exploitative” but consensual – finally catches up with him.

One of the allegations under investigation was featured in a 2023 Dispatches documentary accusing him of sexual misconduct, court documents reveal. The woman alleges she was aged 16 when Brand sent a car to collect her from school for sexual encounters.

Detective superintendent Andy Furphy, who has led a three-year Metropolitan Police probe into allegations against Brand, has insisted “our work is not done” and there is a “very distinct possibility” that the conviction will inspire others to speak out.

A separate civil lawsuit, filed in the US in 2023, claims the former Hollywood actor sexually assaulted a woman on a movie set in 2010.

Brand argued he faced the jury as a ‘convicted-in-the-media rapist’

When Brand arrived for his trial fresh from a Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) summit in Washington, where he posed for a selfie with Donald Trump’s health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, he likely felt buoyed in the knowledge that he had found a place for himself across the pond.

His new-found religious fervour is more marketable in America where he has discovered a whole new fanbase among the evangelical right, having been baptised in the River Thames by TV adventurer Bear Grylls in 2024 a year after allegations of sexual misconduct first surfaced.

He relocated his family to Florida’s Gulf coast later that year and has spent recent months seemingly laying the groundwork for his defence in interviews and podcasts promoting his new book, How To Become a Christian in 7 Days, published by former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s imprint.

Perhaps he had reason to be hopeful. Historical sexual abuse allegations are notoriously difficult to prove and, just three years earlier, Oscar-winning Hollywood actor Kevin Spacey had walked out of the very the same court building exonerated. Not only did jurors at Spacey’s trial acquit him on all counts, many queued up to shake the former House of Cards star’s hand afterwards.

But if Brand truly believed his own delusion that he was the victim of a media conspiracy, he was soon brought back down to earth.

In a pre-trial hearing, judge Mr Justice Bennathan resolutely refused to throw out the case against him on the grounds he had received too much adverse publicity, it can now be reported.

His silver-haired lawyer, Ian Winter KC, argued Brand’s case was so unique it had “never before been seen by the courts”, insisting that the 2023 joint investigation by Dispatches and The Sunday Times alleging sexual misconduct had destroyed him as a person “in total”.

“It deprives the defendant of the presumption of innocence, but fundamentally it deprives him of a level playing field as a witness,” he said. “Because of this documentary the defendant has to give evidence as a convicted-in-the-media rapist.”

The six complainants in the trial were entirely separate from those who had spoken out in the documentary, but had all come forward after it had aired.

Mr Winter claimed it was criminal that the Dispatches episode, titled Russell Brand: In Plain Sight, was still available to download, suggesting it amounted to contempt of court or even perverting the course of justice.

However, both the judge and the prosecution countered this argument with the fact that Brand had been widely publicising his own version of events.

Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC pointed to a string of “denials, explanations” and “other material that falls in his favour”, including his own observation in his book that the media campaign against him had not worked.

Refusing to halt the trial, the judge declined to accept that a collection of “elderly, anonymous allegations” would override a jury’s commitment to fairness or their ability to follow directions.

Brand, who was spared being confined to the dock for the pre-trial arguments, sat so still he appeared to be meditating, praying or counting his breaths during the legal discussions, his rapid blink rate the only outward sign of stress.

Prayers, jokes and podcasts in their pyjamas – how the trial began

Brand’s rigid and extraordinarily upright posture made the star seem unnaturally still during four weeks of evidence as the trial attracted a global media frenzy, with at least four daily podcasts pouring over every detail. As he stood for the judge during court breaks, he would clasp his hands behind his back, sometimes revealing a set of white prayer beads clutched in his right palm.

He barely looked in the direction of more than 20 journalists rammed into the press benches directly behind the dock, while up to 30 more watched on a screen in another courtroom, but repeatedly told camera operators at the court steps he felt “blessed”.

Members of the public often queued for the last remaining seats in the public gallery, but many were turned away, with one man heard shouting loudly at court staff after he was denied entry during the first week.

Each day, the comedian-turned-Rumble-content creator was accompanied by an entourage including his close protection officer, Joe McCann, reportedly a former sparring partner of boxer Tyson Fury. One female acolyte, who travelled to court with Brand and his wife, could be seen pacing the courthouse corridor in prayer before he was due to give evidence.

For one final day of the trial, his wife was joined in the public gallery by her Ryder Cup-winning golfer father, Bernard Gallacher.

Even the Brands themselves tried to cash in on the hype, publishing their own bizarre mid-trial religious podcast episodes of Sunday Service with the Brands, filmed in their pyjamas.

After the first week of evidence, in which Brand was accused of turning into a “monster-like” rapist in an alleged attack in 1999 – a count on which he was ultimately acquitted – the comedian joked that being told to do his shirt up was “the worst of all the things I have had said to me or about me this week”.

He also extolled the virtues of right-wing activist Tommy Robinson, who was convicted of harassing journalists in a trial in the same court building, adding: “I must say I enjoy him, I enjoy his passion and I admire his bravery, his tenacity.”

Brand grew ashen and social media posts stopped

But his steady stream of social media posts, frequently filled with Bible readings, prayer and anti-establishment rhetoric, stopped around two weeks in to the trial as the weight of the evidence against him mounted.

One accuser who was left bleeding and feared she had contracted HIV after he anally raped her had told up to 24 people a similar account over 20 years, the court heard. Afterwards, he even scolded her for ruining his sheets as he ordered her to clean up the mess she had made. Brand was told by the judge he will face a “significant custodial term” after he was found guilty of this offence.

A bid to throw out two of the charges, one for sexual assault and one for indecent assault, also failed mid-trial, although one count was downgraded to attempted indecent assault. He was found guilty of the sexual assault after his pushed his face in the groin of a Channel 4 worker, having demanded a massage, but acquitted of attempted indecent assault.

Brand gradually appeared more tired, ashen and gaunt as the prosecution painted a compelling picture of him as a man who treated women as a “disposable commodity” in his quest to rack up 5,000 notches on his bedpost.

His sexual entitlement had only grown as he rose to fame, the court heard, as the six unconnected women described a similar pattern of behaviour in which his demeanour suddenly flipped.

“Many said he was nice and then it was like there was a personality change, a pivot,” prosecutor Ms Karmy-Jones said. “His eyes changed, he snapped from charming to frightening and nasty.

“He didn’t listen when they said no, he didn’t stop, he didn’t care, he kept pulling, pushing, tugging, thrusting.”

By the time Brand entered the witness box, his energy levels appeared low. Rather than the verbose and animated ramblings he was reputed for as a comic, the jury witnessed excruciating spells of silence as he struggled to answer questions in cross-examination.

Wearing a dark suit, white shirt and artfully arranged necktie, Brand told the jury that his notoriety had soared over the 10-year period of the alleged attacks between 1999 and 2009 and he had achieved “staggering fame” by the time he married Katy Perry the following year.

He blamed the Dispatches documentary for the accusations, insisting the “devastating” media coverage had left him unable to persuade a single person to give evidence on his behalf.

“Would they touch you with a barge pole?” Mr Winter asked, to which Brand replied: “No.”

Brand admitted to “misusing” his fame for sex but struggled to explain the inconsistencies in his recollections as Ms Karmy-Jones accused him of constructing his case around evidence disclosed by the prosecution.

The only defence witness: Laura Brand

In what was perhaps a final desperate act, the defence called Brand’s wife as the only live witness to support his case.

She told the jury she had started dating the comedian in August 2006 when she was 19 and he was 31, but they split around seven months later because he would not remain faithful.

They stayed in contact and rekindled their relationship in 2015, she told the court, describing him as a “wonderful father” and “amazingly attentive husband” following their marriage in 2017.

However, Mr Justice Bennathan was forced to interject when Mr Winter asked Ms Brand “her view as to the truth” of the allegations against her husband.

“No, no, no, she is not an expert witness,” the judge said, before he sent the jury out of court and Ms Brand was ushered from the witness box.

“Mr Winter, you really can’t ask a character witness whether they think the defendant did it or not,” the judge reprimanded him. “Obviously she doesn’t believe the allegations, she’s in love with him and they’ve got three children. That’s implicit.”

It was not the first time the judge had crossed hairs with Brand’s barrister, having told him to “shush” in a tense exchange in front the jury in the first week of the trial.

Brand, having been utterly inscrutable during the previous weeks of evidence, suddenly became animated when his wife was giving evidence on his behalf. Smiling, laughing and mouthing prayers under his breathe, he appeared to all-but cheerlead her through her testimony as she repeatedly met his eye as he watched from the dock.

Written statements from two former girlfriends were also read to jury, with one claiming although Brand had a “bad boy reputation” he could also be “gentle, kind, warm and generous”.

In his closing speech, Mr Winter repeatedly insisted the Dispatches and The Sunday Times reporting had “poisoned the well of justice” against his client.

Despite such arguments being discredited as rape myths, he invited jurors to return not guilty verdicts because the women had not screamed, fought back or tried to get away during their attacks.

He challenged one woman’s reaction to being “raped in the mouth” in a bar toilet in 2004 and questioned why a fan in her early 20s did not “just roll over and kick out” when she was anally raped in 2009. The jury acquitted him of oral rape but found him guilty of the anal rape at his Hampstead townhouse.

“The question for you is, can you possibly be sure in this case that out of the many, many women who voluntarily had sex with Mr Brand, he raped just three of them?” Mr Winter asked.

Now the guilty verdicts have been returned, that question must be answered.