A presiding judge has issued a detailed set of instructions to the jury tasked with deciding the fate of Brand in a sexual assault trial. These directions provide a strict logical framework for evaluating Counts Three through Seven, which involve allegations spanning Soho bars, a radio station, and a private residence.
The sequence of questions for the Soho bar allegations
For the charges involving Soho bars, the jury must follow a precise binary path to reach a verdict. in the case of Count Three, the jury must first establish if Brand deliberately touched the complainant's breasts.. According to the report, a guilty verdict is only possible if the jury subsequently confirms the act was sexual, that the complainant did not consent, and that Brand did not reasonably believe consent had been given.
A similar, more severe logic applies to Count Four, which involves an allegation of rape at a Soho bar. The jury is required to first confirm the physical act—specifically whether Brand put his penis in the complainant's mouth—before moving to the critical questions of consent and the defendant's reasonable belief of that consent. This structured approach ensures that the physical evidence is verified before the legal interpretation of consent is debated.
The undisputed act at the Hampstead townhouse
The legal parameters for Count Six, involving an alleged rape at Brand's Hampstead townhouse in 2009, differ significantly from other counts because the physical act is not in contention. The report states there is no dispute that Brand put his penis in the complainant's anus, meaning the jury does not need to deliberate on whether the event occurred .
Because the act itself is admitted or proven, the entire verdict for the Hampstead case hinges on two specific questions: whether the complainant consented and whether Brand reasonably believed she did. this narrows the scope of the deliberation for Count Six, transforming it into a pure legal argument over the nature of consent rather than a factual dipute over the encounter.
Connecting the 2009 radio station and Channel 4 incidents
Two other counts date back to 2009, involving a radio station (Count Five) and a filming project for Channel 4 (Count Seven). For the radio station incident, the jury must decide if Brand deliberately kissed the complainant on the lips or touched her breasts or bottom.. For the Channel 4 project, the focus is on whether Brand deliberately placed his head in the complainant's lap or groin area.
These 2009 allegations reflect a broader pattern the prosecution is attempting to establish.. By grouping these incidents, the legal team, led by prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC, is presenting a timeline of behavior that spans multiple professional and social environments. As the report notes, the prosecution has emphasized that the accusers do not know each other, a detail intended to suggest that the allegations are independent and not the result of collusion.
The missing perspective from Brand's defense
While the jury instructions clarify the prosecution's path to a conviction, the current reporting leaves several critical questions unanswered regarding the defense's strategy. It remains unclear how Brand intends to argue the "reasonable belief" of consent across these five different scenarios, particularly in the Hampstead case where the act is undisputed.
Furthermore,the source does not provide the specific evidence or testimony Brand's legal team is using to counter the claims of the multiple accusers. While Riel Karmy-Jones KC has highlighted the independence of the witnesses, the defense's response to this perceived pattern of behavior has not been detailed in the available court directions.
Comments 0