Highlights
- The judge told jurors the allegations in the 2023 documentary have never been tested in any court, and that the film will not be shown to them
- He said the defence may argue the programme caused the women to "twist" their memories, and described it as "one-sided and dramatic in manner"
- Two of the complainants have now been cross-examined: the first on Thursday, another on Friday
- Reuters says the trial is now expected to last around six weeks
The judge's ruling
At the start of Thursday's hearing, Mr Justice Bennathan turned to the programme at the centre of the case. All six complainants came forward after the 2023 documentary, he told the jury, and that is why it is relevant. According to Sky News, he told jurors the allegations featured in it have "never been tested in any court," and he warned that the defence may suggest it caused the women to "twist" their memory of events.
He also gave his own view of the film, calling it "one-sided and dramatic in manner," and ruled it would not be shown to the jury. The women whose accounts appeared in it but who are not part of this trial play no role in the case. In practice, the jury will weigh what it hears in court, not what was broadcast in 2023.
The Crown Prosecution Service has reminded everyone that criminal proceedings are active and that no commentary or sharing of information online should prejudice them.
How the prosecution framed the case
Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC opened on Wednesday by telling the jury that the six women do not know each other and came forward independently. She described Brand as ruthless, calculating and manipulative and, in the prosecution's words, a sexual predator, and said his desire for sexual contact was "indiscriminate and voracious." The alleged assaults, she said, took place in a hotel room, workplaces, a toilet cubicle in a bar and at his home.
None of the women reported what happened at the time, Karmy-Jones said, because of guilt, shame and fear of being blamed. On several allegations, the prosecution said, Brand told police he did not remember the incident, if it had happened, and in a prepared statement he denied any non-consensual activity and said accounts of his conduct had been reinvented after the documentary.
The first witnesses
On Thursday the jury of eight men and four women watched the first complainant's video-recorded police interview. She was then cross-examined for nearly two hours by Brand's barrister, Ian Winter KC, according to Reuters. She told the court she found Brand "frightening," angrily rejected the suggestion that they had had consensual sex, and said the documentary was what prompted her to go to the police.
On Friday, another woman told the court Brand had tried to drag her into a toilet cubicle at her workplace. She did not report it at the time, she said, believing it would be her word against his.
How the defence is testing the evidence
Winter's questions so far follow three lines. He has put it to the first complainant that she is not telling the truth and would have left the room if she had been in danger. He has suggested to her that they had consensual sex, which she angrily rejected. And he has argued that the women's view of events changed after they saw the documentary. Winter put it to Friday's witness that the incident was short-lived, that Brand accepted she was not consenting, and that her view of it shifted after the programme. Brand denies all the charges.
What happens next
The prosecution will keep calling evidence, including from the remaining complainants, before the defence sets out its case. Reuters now puts the trial at around six weeks, shorter than the 10 to 12 weeks first reported, which would point to late November. For the charges, the case history and who Brand is, see our guide to the trial. The complainants are legally entitled to lifelong anonymity, and the allegations remain unproven.
