Russell Brand’s Defense Argues Channel 4 Film “Poisoned Well Of Justice Deliberately”

Editor’s note: This story contains details of alleged sexual offenses that some readers may find distressing.

The 2023 Channel 4 documentary about Russell Brand “poisoned the well of justice deliberately” and “fundamentally corrupted” his accusers, according to the closing defense argument of Brand’s lawyer.

Ian Winter leaned on a phrase, coined by a mid-19th century Catholic philosopher, to argue that the Dispatches film, plus reporting in The Times, were responsible for six women coming forward to police with allegations about the Despicable Me star from two decades prior.

Making his closing argument at London’s Southwark Crown Court before the jury is sent away to reach a verdict, Winter was heavily critical of the journalists behind the reporting.

“They poisoned the well of justice deliberately to bring about a prosecution of Mr Brand for sexual assault and for rape,” the barrister said. “And they did so not in respect of any single one of the complaints that were in the heart of the [Channel 4] programme, who were anonymous and who were not prepared to put their names to those allegations. They poisoned the well in the hope and intention that other people would come forward and make allegations against him.”

The six accusers therefore came forward “not because they themselves determined to do so independently of anything else, but each one was exposed to the poison they had seen in the TV programme,” Winter said.

Winter said the documentary had also “poisoned the well” and had a “truly devastating effect” on Brand, pointing to his evidence when he said he had been banned from visiting his son in hospital after the film aired. “It caused people to shun Russell Brand, to positively wish him ill before his trial took place, and to refuse to stand by him or give evidence for him,” said Winter.

Winter continued returning to the “poisoning of the well” argument as his defense of each allegation was made. He went through each of the complainants, who have a lifelong right to anonymity, and noted how he believed they had been influenced by the film.

He said many accusers in the trial had “never told a soul” until after the doc came out while one was imposing “2023’s thinking, not 2001’s” when the incident is alleged to have taken place. Complainant 3, who alleges Brand orally raped her in a toilet, changed her story after the doc and it was “perfectly obvious she got that from the TV programme,” he said. Complainant 5, who alleges Brand anally raped her in 2009 after they had consensual sex, “had told lots of people different stories over the years,” added Winter. “But it wasn’t until she saw the programme that she said, ‘I know personally from watching it that it was the first time I truly felt a monumental change.’”

“One wonders what her evidence would have been if she had not seen [the documentary]?,” Winter told the jury. “What matters to you is the evidence at the time because things may be different now but that is not what you are interested in. We invite you to conclude that [in 2009] she wanted to go along with whatever [Brand] wanted to do.”

Read the full article at Deadline.