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

I think this is the standard "good character" direction that a judge is required to give in the case of a defendant with no prior convictions (or as in this case only one very very minor offence 30 years ago).

If he didn't give it, it would be grounds for appeal - even though in broader, moral terms what has been said about RB both in court and outside suggests he is of "poor" character.

Again, I think the average jury would recognise that not being caught or accused does not mean true good character. And bring to mind Saville, Harris, Edwards and many others.

Thanks 👍🏻

I thought this was interesting in the closing about the 1999 labour party conference charge:

"Brand accused of 'gaslighting' woman after alleged rape
After the alleged rape of complainant one, Ms Karmy-Jones accuses Brand of "gaslighting" her by leaving his Hotmail address, or what she says he "purported to be" his email.
Listing the woman's achievements to the court, the prosecution asks: "Is that woman some sort of lunatic who would make this up now?"
She asks if she sounds like the kind of woman who would make up the allegation after watching the 2023 Dispatches documentary, before flagging to the jury that complainant one has still not watched the entire programme.

I am hopeful that there are things - like this - that can not be fully reported that will have made what the jury heard more compelling that what we are reading in the reported summaries.

The media is hugely mindful not to fall foul of "jigsaw" identification breaching the anonymity rule by revealing any personal details of the complainants that form part of the trial / their evidence.

This woman may well be a public figure or otherwise well regarded in her field and that may lend additional credence to her testimony. (Not that that should be a test of who is to be belived but sadly it can be the case).

I have been hopeful throughout that this charge may succeed proceeding as it precedes RB's fame. He was a complete unknown at the time and so the defence's line about women throwing themselves at him consensually - which did of course happen a lot - doesn't wash as well here.

Of course not.
I just would like to see people considering the actual evidence, not taking a view because he has an obnoxious public persona.

I really hope the defence making their closing arguments this afternoon and not after the weekend.

why their distaste for the unsympathetic victim was not a reason to fail to convict the very clearly guilty defendant...
But I expect you didn’t say, and aren’t saying in her, that their ‘distaste for the unsympathetic defendant was not a reason to convict..’

There is a prevention on returning a majority at this stage If the time comes when a majority can be accepted the judge will tell the jury when that is.

Those asking about “good character” it is a legal term meaning someone has no previous convictions.

I agree that giving character witness seems pointless - perhaps the reason the defence are doing this as most posters on these threads loftily say they wouldn’t stay with a man accused of the crimes (even if not convicted) means that they didn’t take place, because no wife would accept that…

@LaDeratiseuse”loftily”. Give it a rest.

The tone of posts on this thread (unlike much of Mumsnet at the moment) has been respectful and polite. Let’s keep in that way and minimise the unnecessary digs.

You can be very very clear that I am considering the evidence thank you (with a full comprehension that I am not on the jury and am only hearing what it is possible to report on). I have not heard all the evidence with my own ears taking into account the demeanour and tone of the witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence. I am considering the summaries of the evidence as they have been reported live by various news outlets throughout the trial.

My thoughts on Brand and his general character do not sway my opinion. FWIW I actually rather liked him and found him funny - yes shocking and irreverant - for many years. Until I didn't. But that is neither here nor there.

As it happens, in that particular case, the defendant was a lot more sympathetic than the complainant (both male for what its worth - and the complainant was a middle class professional too. The defendant was not). To the extent that certain jurors needed guidance to be able to look beyond that. However, we had CCTV, bank statements and lots of compelllig evidence. But it was quite staggering how some were prepared to overlook that because they disapproved so significantly of the complainant.

Luckily we were vindicated when we finally managed to return the guilty verdict - and the judge was vehement in her sentencing remarks about the extreme nature of the offence and sentencing at the top end of the guidelines.

@KidsDoBetter yes, I quite liked him for many years too. I think that stopped when he and Jonathan Ross behaved appallingly towards and Andrew Sachs and his granddaughter Georgina. 🤮

Sadly I think the odious, misogynistic, twat will be found not guilty. He's guilty but I just can't see them convicting on he said, she said evidence. Personally I'd lock him up for at least 30 years.

I hope their evidence has been convincing enough.
fwiw I always loved watching him, thought he was funny and the sex stuff was an embellished caricature of himself

The spouse can't be compelled to give evidence for the prosecution, but can be compelled by the defence.

Obviously, defence wouldn't call a spouse with a grievance. But I think one or two have managed to be called, then stitched the guilty spouse up under questioning.

Sadly not.

The prosecution has finished now though I guess the jury will have all weekend with those closing remarks as the last thing they heard. The defence now has all weekend to fine tune their rejoinders and of course the advantage of speaking after and a gap and right before deliberations.

Not quite true - they can be compelled by the prosecution in certain cases involving offences against children / domestic violence since PACE came in.

@UncleColma quick research indicates in Ireland also, a defendant may choose to put their good character before the court by:

• Giving evidence themselves about their good character.
• Calling character witnesses who can testify to their good reputation in the community.

In practice, character evidence is often more influential in cases where:

• the evidence is finely balanced;
• the defendant's credibility is important; and
• the allegations describe conduct that appears radically at odds with the defendant's established reputation.

However, evidence as to the defendant’s good character is usually much less important than direct evidence like eyewitness testimony, documents, forensic evidence, recordings, admissions, or contemporaneous messages.

So the short answer is: Laura Brand's evidence is not relevant because it tells the jury what happened; it is relevant because it tells the jury what sort of person the defence says Russell Brand is and invites them to consider whether that bears on the likelihood of the allegations being true. The jury’s free to conclude that a person of apparently good character committed the alleged offences anyway.

Not sure @UncleColm was suggesting that character evidence isn't allowed in the Irish justice system ...

The main difference was flagged by another user upthread - namely that both defendants and complainants in sexual assault cases in Ireland have a right to anonymity.

Great user name btw @UncleColm . You'd make a fabulous witness in any case for a blow by blow detailed account 😜

God yes, that was it for me. I always found him very funny and quirky, but those phone messages he and Jonathan Ross left were an absolute disgrace. I have avoided watching either of them since (not that I was overly keen on Jonathan Ross anyway tbh!)

Oh that sucks.

There are other ways! He could force her onto her knees on the floor, or sit her on the toilet. No acrobatics required. I'm assuming she's not an especially large-bodied woman, and Brand's skinny. Easy to fit two people in a cubicle - I'm sure most of us have done at times.

Not sure about the weight of a character reference if the only person who is willing to take the stand is his wife and mother if his kids

nobody else at all willing to stand up for him?

jonathan woss? Anyone of any standing in the community?

Ah sorry - I missed that.

No, at the risk of channelling Mary Whitehouse, I’d say they’ve all apparently dribbled back into their hidey holes in the moral vacuum that is the TV industry.