Russell Brand 🤢🤮 in the Docky Wock

[U53rName]

Credit to @thebrowncatisback for the title. Original thread is here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5589048-russell-brand?callback=in&code=YTEWYJJJMZQTMJFHNS0ZNDI5LTK3N2QTZWJHYWNHZJGXNZA2&page=39&state=aa7521b41da5458084d85ced7c73c27d

@Mamamia35 Patrick Gibbs KC represented Spacey. Ian Winter’s representing Brand.

https://3rblaw.com/barrister/patrick-gibbs-kc/

Gibbs does have significant expertise in defending those accused of sexual offences.

I think the staff were used to this behaviour and there would have been many others so maybe this was something they were used to. I think we have to question the whole culture of the media at the time including the desire to protect star talent until it becomes untenable. I don't think all the staff that witnessed these events were intrinsically bad by turning a blind eye but genuinely fearful of destroying their careers with complaints. (I think this may be the case with Weinstein explaining the length of time it took for crimes to come to light). I think it is worth exploring how such a culture develops and I think the tabloid press now shocked at the Brand allegations should remember they probably benefited from all the gossip at the height of his fame.

I see @Piglet89 explained it. Thank @Piglet89 !

@easteggevery time I see someone referencing Piglet having explained something like this, I sort of chuckle as my username is pretty incongruous, given the subject matter.

I am a lawyer - I studied criminal law during my degree, but have never practised in crime.

You were very accurate! (Criminal barrister, non-practising these days).

I don’t know where the idea has come from that Brand had a flatmate, or that it was ‘proven’ that he did not tell her to ‘clean up the mess’. I don’t think there’s any anything in the evidence to suggest either of those things at all.

I was just wondering as a barrister what your thoughts on alcohol were?. not generally of course but if it aids the defence in these if a complainant had drank? Is this not relevant or are there restrictions for the defence in terms of simply saying the complainant drank so cannot be trusted d to give a true recollection of events?

@Piglet89 sorry if I got that wrong about Soacey. I’m sure I heard the reference on a podcast.

He’s a wealthy white male. History tells us that these men are very rarely held to account.

What do you think might save Brand at this stage? One of my fears for woman 5 is alcohol.

I agree wealth might help if it means getting a very good barrister but according to posts above he might be the best.

Other than that do you think the jury will be prejudiced by believing some of his conspiracy theories or maybe just respecting celebs too much and not believing someone so famous could be so heinous?

Oh this is a bit defeatist.
(I genuinely mean this in a good way, please don't take offence.)

I am not a lawyer and yes I know that they jury should be only guided by the evidence but to be real here I'm not sure they always do.

As regards his celeb status influencing anything, my opinion is that Mr Average thinks he's an absolute prat and a bit of a weirdo and not one of them. Far from it.

Make of that what you will.

From the podcast I’ve been listening to, it’s not coming across that alcohol has featured a huge amount. Complainant 5 perhaps the most, but I didn’t get the impression that the defence made much headway with any suggestion that her memory was affected.

Generally, alcohol consumption can play a huge part in undermining a rape complainant’s evidence, as any doubt that something may have been said or done leading to a reasonable belief in consent can lead to acquittal, so if memories can’t be trusted, well you can see why the defence are going to want to explore that. I’m not really seeing that here though.

As an aside, a person can be deemed incapable of consent if they are incapacitated, and obvious drunkenness can invalidate the reasonableness of a claimed belief in consent, but then that can get complicated where the defendant was also drunk.

It’s all fact specific and case specific, but there are no restrictions on what the defence can explore if it’s relevant to the witness’s memory of events and those events are in dispute.

Thank you. Very informative.

I don’t see that the defense are going to want to argue to much about alcohol because it’ll just make him look worse?
If they try to argue that she was to drunk to know what she was agreeing to do in bed then it suggests she was to drunk to consent in the first place, having sex with someone who is to intoxicated to know what they are doing is rape isn’t it?

Agree. You may be unlucky and get someone on the jury who's a "women just want their 15 minutes of fame and a payout" type who goes on about "crying rape" (and there'll be a lot who don't approve of the documentary about him) but now that he's actually on trial, I really wouldn't have thought Brand's past UK celeb status and behaviour would be much of an advantage with the average UK juror.

I don't think he was exactly beloved here by the population at large. Some demographics in one specific era, yes.

And yeah, I also can't see them trying the "she was drunk" thing when they'll probably want to downplay that if they've got any sense, since that incriminates him even more.

I’ll admit I’m not experienced in extradition. Are you? I understand it wouldn’t happen in a heartbeat, but I also don’t know what the basis is for saying 3-5 years, sounds pessimistic to me. And wouldn’t they just have to demonstrate ‘probable cause’ in the US court? Don’t see any particular need for forensic evidence any more than you necessarily need it in the UK, which you don’t. And of course he’s a UK citizen. US would probably be happy to give him up!

Agree. Also his born again Christian-ism isn't likely to go down well, either.

In the UK, people are more cynical about this. What's he hiding? Would be my response.

The whole alcohol thing is a can of worms. I agree.

Yeah, hes such a creep. The fact he still thinks hes fantastic is beyond me

Yes , the whole thing was bizzare and grotesque. The fact Jimny said a woman in a professional line of work should arrive at a front door naked was ludicrous.
Was it live on air during the daytime???

Well, looking at their deviant history, it wasnt tongue in cheek. It was more their thoughts really broadcasted out loud

Maybe trying to give the 'in the middle of a rape trial, im a devoted family man"

It was live on air but I can't remember what time of day.
Initially I was gobsmacked that it was being broadcast on R2, but then I realised it was live so they couldn't do anything to stop the broadcast of it.
But what shocked me as well is that nothing was made of it. No media coverage. No reports. No disciplinary action for Brand. He just carried on working for R2 as normal.
(Edited initially I thought it was daytime but thinking about it more carefully I'm not sure now, maybe it wasn't).

Channel 4 Dispatches “Russell Brand in plain sight” was enlightening. I’ve just watched it. I

Surely, a judge would tell him to cover up or his barrister/lawyer will say "shirts unbuttoned to the belly button isnt an appropriate look for a serious court case"