Third Accuser Testifies Russell Brand Raped Her in London Bar Toilet

He literally just grabbed my boobs, out of nowhere, just in the middle of a conversation and I just remember just this like, weird maniacal grin, like looming in front of me, the third complainant in the Russell Brand trial told detectives in a pre-recorded police interview played for jurors at Southwark Crown Court.

That testimony marked the start of the second week of proceedings against the 51-year-old comedian and former television presenter, who faces allegations spanning a decade of his showbiz career. Brand denies three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault, and one count of indecent assault involving six different women. He arrived at the central London court on Monday morning accompanied by his wife, Laura Gallacher, 38. The trial centers on whether the encounters were consensual, as the defense contends, or non-consensual assaults as the complainants maintain.

Testimony from July 2004

The complainant, who cannot be named and was working for MTV at the time of the alleged incident in July 2004, told the court she had watched Brand present Big Brother spin-off shows on Channel 4, including Big Brother's Big Mouth, and thought he was funny. She asked a friend to introduce them at a birthday party held at Nordic Bar in Soho. According to her evidence, the assault began within 30 to 60 seconds of meeting him, after which he grabbed her arm and dragged her into a toilet cubicle with a flooded floor.

She told jurors that Brand jumped onto the closed toilet lid, unzipped his trousers, and forced her to perform a sex act while pushing her head down. She recalled him saying, Come on, come on, don't be a spoilsport, and remembered freezing because she did not know what to do. During the incident, a man knocked on the door and asked, Are you OK? after which Brand casually walked over, unlocked the door, and told her, Oh, I guess we should swap numbers now, as though nothing unusual had occurred.

The witness stated that she was subsequently steered or guided into a car, which she believed was hired by Big Brother producers Endemol. While traveling to another bar in Camden with two men sitting in the front, she felt a nudge, looked around, and saw Brand with his penis exposed, telling her, Come on, come on, suck it. She refused, and Brand put his penis away while looking down at his lap, smiling, and laughing. She later told a male friend part of what had happened, and he told her it was attempted rape. She also recalled being appalled when MTV later hired Brand as a presenter, actively avoiding him and refusing to attend any building parties where he was present.

Cross-Examination and Defense Strategy

During cross-examination, Brand’s barrister, Ian Winter KC, questioned the woman's recollection of events and her alcohol consumption that evening. The witness acknowledged that she had consumed about six vodka, lime, and sodas, stating that she was tipsy or merry rather than paralytic or falling over. Winter suggested that she had happily accompanied Brand to the lavatory and was charmed by the celebrity. The woman firmly rejected that characterization, stating, I was not charmed in the slightest. I’d met this person for less than a minute when they sexually assaulted me.

When Winter questioned how Brand managed to clamber onto the lavatory seat and position her, the witness replied, Maybe he’s done it a lot of times. It was quick, skilled, I would say. He jumped up onto the toilet holding onto me, he was sitting on the toilet holding me and not letting me go. She also testified that she waited 19 years to call the police because she felt immense shame and wanted to change the narrative in her own head so she did not feel like a victim, but ultimately decided to come forward after seeing media coverage in 2023.

• Complainant three, an MTV worker in 2004
• Six women total making allegations spanning from 1999 to 2009
• Defense counsel Ian Winter KC
• Jurors at Southwark Crown Court

The trial at Southwark Crown Court continues, with the defense arguing that the encounters have been reimagined by the complainants following public allegations against the entertainer.