Russell Brand is said to be considering replacing his legal team after becoming “furious” with the performance of his barrister during the trial that ended with his conviction for rape and sexual assault.
Brand was sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison and is understood to be looking for different representation if he faces further criminal charges, according to legal sources.
His defence was led by Ian Winter KC, whose cross-examination of the women who gave evidence was criticised by some observers as coming close to victim-blaming.
Mr Winter also faced criticism for arguments made during mitigation, including a reference to Brand being “a fundamentally different person today” and having been “extraordinarily famous” at the time of the offences.
He told the court that the final alleged offence had “happened very shortly after he met [pop star] Katy Perry”. Mr Justice Bennathan intervened, saying: “To say ‘He got away with it for 17 years’ is not necessarily a huge piece of mitigation, is it?”
The barrister also said that one of the women assaulted by Brand in a Soho bar in 2004 was “not particularly vulnerable” and had been “tipsy” rather than vulnerable.
In sentencing, the judge said women retained the right to refuse sexual contact and seek justice regardless of their clothing, location or alcohol consumption.
“Whatever women wear, wherever they go, whatever they drink, they retain the right to say no and demand justice in the criminal courts when predators like you, Mr Brand, act without their consent,” he told Brand.
Criticism of Russell Brand defence
Mr Winter had earlier attracted widespread criticism after swearing at Sunday Times journalist Ros Urwin outside court following the guilty verdict.
Ms Urwin’s investigation in 2023 preceded the coming forward of Brand’s victims. When she said justice had been done, Mr Winter replied: “Well it wasn’t, you f****d it. Congratulations.”
He later reported himself to the Bar Standards Board after complaints from witnesses to the exchange and from the Sunday Times.
During an earlier pre-trial hearing, Mr Winter had suggested that reports by the Sunday Times and Channel Four might have been in contempt of court and had perverted the course of justice. Ms Urwin said the claim made her “laugh, because it was so ludicrous”, as no legal proceedings were active at the time.
Sian Harrison, a specialist court reporter and co-author of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, described the conduct of the defence case as among the worst examples she had seen in two decades.
Speaking to Sky News, she said: “I think we’ve seen probably one of the worst examples in recent times… of that kind of questioning of victims and… we don’t know the reasons for the jury’s verdict, but it may be that didn’t sit well with them.”
She added: “Certain lines of defence were difficult to understand… it was quite strange to witness what was happening.”
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley also criticised Mr Winter’s suggestion to jurors that none of the women had “resisted, screamed or even tried to leave”.
“I think what I’ve heard reported heads towards, it’s getting very close to victim blaming, which is something we’ve thought very hard about in policing and make sure we don’t do,” Sir Mark told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He said he would support a call from the Victims’ Commissioner for a legal duty requiring judges to direct juries on rape myths and misconceptions in every rape trial.
“It shouldn’t be possible for inaccurate statements to be made to a jury to suggest that because a rape victim didn’t behave in one way that somehow undermines their case,” he said.
Legal sources expect Brand could face further criminal charges following the verdicts in his first trial, while he also faces the possibility of civil claims.
