Russell Brand Takes the Stand at London Trial and Denies All Charges Latest News

Asked whether he had persuaded anyone with relevant evidence to testify for him, Russell Brand gave a short answer that filled the courtroom. He had not, he said, and the case had consumed his entire life. Then he took the witness stand and denied every charge against him.

Russell Brand, 51, took the witness stand in his own defence at Southwark Crown Court, London, on Wednesday 28 October 2026 and denied all charges. He answered no to each of seven counts: three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted indecent assault, involving six women, with alleged incidents between 1999 and 2009, according to reporting on the proceedings.

Brand has consistently denied engaging in non-consensual sexual activity, according to the reporting. No verdict has been reached, the trial is continuing, and Brand remains presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The allegations in this article are reported as allegations, and no allegation is presented here as fact.

The charges are serious, and the language of the courtroom was plain. Brand was asked about each count in turn, and his answer to each was no. That denial, given in his own defence, is the centre of the testimony reported on 28 October.

I have not.

That was Brand's reply when his barrister, Ian Winter KC, asked whether he had persuaded anyone to appear on his behalf. Brand told jurors he had been unable to persuade anyone with relevant evidence to testify for him, and he described the effect of the allegations on his life in stark terms.

My entire life has been consumed by these allegations.

Brand also described the allegations as devastating, according to the reporting. The words are his account, given in court, of what the case has meant for him since the allegations were made public in September 2023, following reporting by The Times and Sunday Times and a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary.

Russell Brand Trial: What He Told the Jury About Consent

Brand told the court that consent was fundamental, essential and necessary, and, in his words, in many ways more important than sex itself. The statement was part of his evidence in his own defence, and it frames the denial he gave to each count.

Consent was fundamental, essential, necessary and in many ways, more important than sex itself.

The reporting does not add graphic detail beyond what the sources report, and this article follows that limit. Readers are given the counts, the dates as alleged, and Brand's denial, without further detail about the allegations themselves. No complainant is named in this article.

Brand told the court that Great Ormond Street Hospital had prevented him visiting his baby son while the child was receiving treatment including open-heart surgery, citing material published about him. He said he and his wife, Laura Gallacher, were not given a clear legal explanation. This is Brand's account presented to the court, not a verified hospital statement, and it is attributed to him here.

Gallacher accompanied him to court, and they arrived holding hands, according to the reporting. The image of a couple arriving together sits alongside the courtroom evidence, and it is reported as an observed detail, not as a comment on the case itself.

Judge-Directed Not-Guilty Verdict: Indecent Assault Count Replaced

On Tuesday 27 October, the day before Brand gave evidence, the judge directed jurors to return a not-guilty verdict on the original indecent assault count, relating to a 2001 MTV incident, for insufficient evidence. That count was replaced by the lesser attempted indecent assault count, which remains before the jury.

The change should be read exactly as reported. The judge-directed not-guilty verdict applied to the original count, on the ground of insufficient evidence. It did not end the trial, and it did not decide the remaining counts, including the attempted indecent assault count that replaced it.

That distinction matters for anyone following the case. A trial with seven counts, as originally put, now proceeds with a different shape, and the jury has still to decide the counts before it. No verdict has been reached on any remaining count, and Brand remains presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Brand's earlier public discussion of faith and sobriety is a separate matter from this testimony, and readers can find it in the report of Russell Brand telling Hannity that faith in Jesus keeps him sober after 22 years. That was an interview, not court evidence, and the two should not be confused.

Court proceedings with a church at their centre are covered in the report of the Supreme Court hearing in the St. Mary Catholic Parish case, while a separate continuing lawsuit is covered in the report of the McLean Bible Church lawsuit continuing after an appeal was dismissed.

What Happens Next in the Russell Brand Trial

The trial continues, with Brand's evidence now before the jury. The court will hear what remains of the case, and the jury will be asked to decide the counts that remain, on the evidence presented in court.

Until that happens, the only confirmed facts are the ones the court has already produced: the denial, the judge's direction on one count, and the replacement of that count with a lesser one. Everything else in the case is still to be decided, and speculation about the outcome would serve no one, least of all the people whose evidence the jury must weigh.

Will the jury accept Brand's denial, will the evidence for the remaining counts persuade them otherwise, and what will the next days in court reveal about a case that Brand says has already consumed his entire life, and that has not yet reached a verdict?

But the most surprising part of this story is yet to come — keep reading.