@hihelenhinot especially surprised the defence advocacy hasn't been particularly impressive. As I said before (and as others have noted), Ian Winter KC built his reputation largely in financial crime work rather than sexual offences.According to The Times podcast, he also put a suggestion to Woman 5 along the lines of: "I'm sure he was beastly to you, but he didn't anally rape you." I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting exactly, but that was the gist. What struck me was the choice of language.
“Beastly" feels like a very old-fashioned word. Fairly or unfairly, it's the sort of adjective I associate with upper-middle-class people of Winter's generation. It's hard not to hear the RP accent alongside it. To my ear, it risks sounding as though the allegation is being reduced to Brand having been a bit unpleasant or ungentlemanly, rather than addressing what the complainant describes as a violent encounter.
It's also an odd word choice in the context of this particular evidence. Woman 5 reportedly said that she texted Brand to say he had treated her "like an animal". Against that backdrop, describing the behaviour as merely "beastly" risks sounding flippant or tone-deaf, even if that wasn't the intention.As a piece of cross-examination, I'm not convinced it will have landed especially well with a jury.
Defence counsel obviously has to put the defence case, and the underlying proposition is clear enough: Brand may have behaved badly, but he did not rape her. The difficulty is that the wording arguably softens the conduct so much that it risks alienating jurors rather than persuading them. It is the kind of language that can make an advocate seem detached from how ordinary people would describe the allegations being discussed.Perhaps that's unfair, and we only have media reports rather than a full transcript, but on the face of it I thought the phrasing was striking, and not necessarily in a helpful way for the defence.
@easteggmaybe all this is irrelevant? But a jury’s only human, after all.