A woman who alleges Russell Brand raped her at his London home told Southwark Crown Court that she was left feeling “degraded” and as though she had been treated “like an animal” and “a piece of meat”.
The woman, who was 21 at the time, said she had been a “massive Russell Brand fan” and had “adored” the comedian when they first met after a performance at the Hammersmith Apollo in 2009.
Brand, 51, denies three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault relating to six women.
Recorded police interviews with the woman were played to jurors during the trial. She described carrying feelings of shame and guilt after the alleged assault.
The court heard she had initially agreed to meet Brand at his Hampstead home after splitting from her boyfriend, believing they would have consensual sex. She said the encounter changed when he removed a condom and began anal sex without seeking her agreement.
She alleged that she was in pain, struggling to breathe and repeatedly asked him: “Can you stop, can you stop, can you stop?”
The woman said that, afterwards, Brand told her to “clear up the mess that you’ve made”, referring to the bed sheets. She recalled him turning on the television and taking a phone call before leaving to perform, while she remained behind to clean.
In a police interview, she said she later encountered Brand at the Edinburgh Festival and received a “random” message from him. She challenged him, asking: “Why are you even messaging me?”
She said Brand replied: “Because you are dirty and I want to push you further.” The woman told him: “I think you’ve pushed me far enough. You treated me like an animal.”
According to her evidence, Brand immediately responded: “I’m sorry.” She said the exchange brought back how she had felt after the alleged rape and that she did not want any further contact with him.
During cross-examination, Brand’s barrister Ian Winter KC suggested the encounter had been consensual and that the woman’s judgement had been clouded because she idolised the comedian.
Becoming emotional, she rejected the suggestion and said: “I didn’t agree to do it. You’re not here to discuss my morality. This is criminality.”
She told the court that she had made clear she was consenting to vaginal sex with a condom, but not to anal sex. “I made it clear what was consensual and what wasn’t,” she said.
The woman said she had felt uncomfortable even during the consensual part of the encounter, including after being told to shower and brush her teeth.
She added that she had carried her guilt and shame because she feared she had brought the alleged assault on herself by going willingly to Brand’s home. “That just because you go somewhere willingly and the outcome in the end is not consensual, it’s a different scenario,” she said.
The trial continues.
