Jury told Russell Brand's conduct towards women is not a crime
Defence counsel at Southwark Crown Court told the jury that behaving like a « crazy idiot » towards women is not in itself a criminal offence, as Brand faces multiple charges he denies.
Defence lawyers at Southwark Crown Court have told the jury that behaving like a « crazy idiot » towards women is not a crime, as the trial of comedian and broadcaster Russell Brand continues in London.
Brand, 51, denies three charges of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted indecent assault against six women. The defence has not disputed that Brand's behaviour towards women may have been erratic or unpleasant, but has argued that such conduct, however troubling, does not amount to a criminal offence. The jury was reminded that the question before them is not whether Brand acted in a way others might consider offensive or reckless in personal relationships.
Instead, jurors must decide whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that each specific allegation took place in the manner described and that the legal elements of each charge are met. The distinction is central to the case, because much of the evidence concerns the nature of relationships, communication and conduct over a period of time. Each count relates to a separate allegation, and the jury must consider them individually rather than as a single pattern of behaviour.
The trial has drawn wide public attention given Brand's profile as a former television presenter, author and public commentator, a career that has placed him in front of large audiences in Britain and abroad. He has consistently denied the allegations against him, and his legal team has challenged the prosecution's account on the grounds that unpleasant personal conduct should not be conflated with criminal intent.
The proceedings are ongoing at Southwark Crown Court, and the jury will continue to hear evidence before deliberating on the verdicts. Court reporters covering the hearing have noted the emphasis placed on the difference between moral judgement and legal liability, a point that is likely to remain at the heart of the closing arguments. No verdict has yet been reached, and the outcome will rest solely on the evidence the jury finds credible and the legal tests they are directed to apply.
Source: manchestereveningnews.co.uk
7
