Russell Brand

[Matlock]

Channel 4 just called allegations against brand "disgusting ".

Link?

 

[Browser Brody]

Link?

Channel 4 boss: Brand allegations are horrendous - BBC News

Russell Brand has been accused of rape and sexual assaults, which he denies.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Matlock]

Channel 4 boss: Brand allegations are horrendous - BBC News

Russell Brand has been accused of rape and sexual assaults, which he denies.

www.bbc.co.uk

So the alleged acts are horrendous. Not that allegations being made are horrendous. Wasn't sure from the OP.

 

[Browser Brody]

Mid 00’s pop culture was a bit shit when you look back it now, remember when Russell Brand and Pete Doherty were all the go ?

 

[boshea]

So the alleged acts are horrendous. Not that allegations being made are horrendous. Wasn't sure from the OP.

Could the documentary scupper the chances of a succesful prosecution - in that all the media coverage/social meda coverage etc could kill any chance of a 'fair' trial.

It's a bit of an odd situation - given that 2 of the allegations that are the more 'solid' and have fairly damning evidence occured in the US - could those incidents be used in a British court as evidence? Can the evidence of anonymous people be used in court?

 

[Matlock]

Could the documentary scupper the chances of a succesful prosecution - in that all the media coverage/social meda coverage etc could kill any chance of a 'fair' trial.

It's a bit of an odd situation - given that 2 of the allegations that are the more 'solid' and have fairly damning evidence occured in the US - could those incidents be used in a British court as evidence? Can the evidence of anonymous people be used in court?

He could argue that his right to a fair trial has been impeded, but generally the "solution" to that is to offer him a judge only trial.

Jurisdictional issues are more interesting. The cases will have to be tried where they occurred. It is very arguable that he isn't as famous in the US as the UK so they could probably swing a jury trial there.

Every SA case (or any case for that matter) has to be tried on its own merits. You can't introduce evidence of other offenses (except in very limited circumstances to show a pattern of behaviour). So they couldn't use an allegation of SA in another jurisdiction in a SA case in the US. They couldn't even use a conviction. If he was convicted of SA though then evidence of other convictions could be highlighted to the Judge for sentencing purposes.

Anonymous evidence is inadmissible. There is the possibility that a witness (esp if they are the alleged victim) might be given press anonymity though. As in, their identity can't be reported on. There are rumours that one of the alleged victims may now be quite famous in her own right and so it might be a publicity shit show if they are identified.

 

[sigourney's knickers]

Mid 00’s pop culture was a bit shit when you look back it now, remember when Russell Brand and Pete Doherty were all the go ?

 

[boshea]

He could argue that his right to a fair trial has been impeded, but generally the "solution" to that is to offer him a judge only trial.

Jurisdictional issues are more interesting. The cases will have to be tried where they occurred. It is very arguable that he isn't as famous in the US as the UK so they could probably swing a jury trial there.

Every SA case (or any case for that matter) has to be tried on its own merits. You can't introduce evidence of other offenses (except in very limited circumstances to show a pattern of behaviour). So they couldn't use an allegation of SA in another jurisdiction in a SA case in the US. They couldn't even use a conviction. If he was convicted of SA though then evidence of other convictions could be highlighted to the Judge for sentencing purposes.

Anonymous evidence is inadmissible. There is the possibility that a witness (esp if they are the alleged victim) might be given press anonymity though. As in, their identity can't be reported on. There are rumours that one of the alleged victims may now be quite famous in her own right and so it might be a publicity shit show if they are identified.

Thanks very much - really appreciate the explanation.

It's a very 'interesting' case from legal point of view (I'm loathe to use interesting in an SA case but can't think of a better word for it!!)

A shitshow is the word for it all. No justice for anybody really in this scenario is there - not for the victims if what they're alleging is true, and not for Brand if what they're alleging is false (and I'm not for a second suggesting it is!!)

Lose lose all round.

 

[Matlock]

Thanks very much - really appreciate the explanation.

It's a very 'interesting' case from legal point of view (I'm loathe to use interesting in an SA case but can't think of a better word for it!!)

A shitshow is the word for it all. No justice for anybody really in this scenario is there - not for the victims if what they're alleging is true, and not for Brand if what they're alleging is false (and I'm not for a second suggesting it is!!)

Lose lose all round.

Yeah, it is interesting (and I know what you mean about that word!)

I thought that the documentary itself kinds blurred lines between stuff that was creepy and gross but perfectly legal, and stuff that (if true) is criminal behaviour. I'm not mad about that as an approach tbh.

Like in the Belfast rape cases, those guys behaved very badly, but not illegally. But it ended up with this sense that they should be convicted for the whatsapp messages they sent etc, when that stuff isn't criminal.

There is no doubt that Brand is a letch, he gleefully admits that himself. But that doesn't automatically mean he is a rapist.

I was struck watching the doc though at how much the line has moved since the early 2000s in terms of what is acceptable. Nowdays, he would be cancelled for the contents of the the Jimmy Saville interview alone!

 

[boshea]

Yeah, it is interesting (and I know what you mean about that word!)

I thought that the documentary itself kinds blurred lines between stuff that was creepy and gross but perfectly legal, and stuff that (if true) is criminal behaviour. I'm not mad about that as an approach tbh.

Like in the Belfast rape cases, those guys behaved very badly, but not illegally. But it ended up with this sense that they should be convicted for the whatsapp messages they sent etc, when that stuff isn't criminal.

There is no doubt that Brand is a letch, he gleefully admits that himself. But that doesn't automatically mean he is a rapist.

I was struck watching the doc though at how much the line has moved since the early 2000s in terms of what is acceptable. Nowdays, he would be cancelled for the contents of the the Jimmy Saville interview alone!

I think you're very much on the same page as myself and the mrs as we watched it here last night.

I think if anything the editing was quite poorly done, as you say blurred lines - the guy made his fame essentially for being a junkie/sex addict who was liable to do and say anything - it's not a massive leap to the allegations from there.

I get the feeling there will more repercussions on those in charge of the production companies he was working for , channel 4 etc at the time as they seemed to have just swept it under the rug and/or ignored it. Whilst his actions may or may not have been illegal, it was certainly beyond acceptable limits - and they neglected their duty of care towards employees etc.

And on that note - would those who reported it at the time to Channel 4 etc have a case against the channel for failing to protect them - that would seem to be more of a slam dunk (from my absolute laymans pov of course!!)