Russell Brand has been charged with additional offences, including rape, following authorisation from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Metropolitan Police announced these charges involve two more women, with incidents allegedly occurring in 2009. Brand, known for his roles in comedy and film, will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 20 January 2026.

 

Brand had previously pleaded not guilty to five other charges, including rape, sexual assault, and indecent assault, involving four women. These incidents reportedly took place between 1999 and 2005 across central London and Bournemouth. The upcoming trial for the initial charges is scheduled to start at Southwark Crown Court on 16 June 2026.

 

The investigation into Brand began after reports surfaced in September 2023 from the Sunday Times, the Times, and Channel 4's Dispatches. The CPS outlined that the new charges pertain to separate women, reflecting the extensive and ongoing nature of these allegations.

 

Detective Chief Inspector Tariq Farooqi from the Metropolitan Police stated that the women involved are being supported by specially trained officers. This development in the case highlights the serious nature of the charges Brand faces, with implications that extend to both his personal life and career.

 

Brand’s journey from stand-up comedy in Essex to international celebrity involved hosting popular TV shows such as Big Brother's Big Mouth and starring in Hollywood films like Forgetting Sarah Marshall. These allegations have cast a shadow over his public image, creating a legal battle that will be closely watched in the years ahead, reported the BBC.

 

 

Key Takeaways

• Russell Brand faces new charges of rape and sexual assault, involving two additional women.
• Previous charges include five offences against four women, with a trial set for Southwark Crown Court in June 2026.
• Brand appeared as a popular comedian and actor, with a career now mired in serious legal challenges.

Related Story:

Russell Brand: BBC and Channel 4 investigate allegations

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-12-24

 

 

 

Disappointed 

I think he is an obnoxious, babbling ass but I don't know about these charges.  He gets groupies coming at him the way rock stars do,  I think somebody up the chain over there doesn't like him.

 

^^^ Agree. Can’t stand the bloke, but these are likely just trying it on for the payday. He clearly put it about but how easy is it for a woman to turn a consensual assignation into rape? The way it is nowadays regards the demonisation of red-blooded males, the system and media lap that up. 

Dangerous speaking facts against big Pharma narratives and being conservative. Doesnt help being a God botherer too. His 3 real "crimes".

I liked him and diddy in get him to the greek. They seem targets of the incel left

4 hours ago, bendejo said:

I think he is an obnoxious, babbling ass but I don't know about these charges.  He gets groupies coming at him the way rock stars do,  I think somebody up the chain over there doesn't like him.

 

Its all about consensual, not just groupies

4 hours ago, bendejo said:

I think he is an obnoxious, babbling ass but I don't know about these charges.  He gets groupies coming at him the way rock stars do,  I think somebody up the chain over there doesn't like him.

 

It seems he has a few groupies in this thread.

 

 

Speak against the machine, and it will eat you up.   Same plot line, decades old, new complaints, who would have guessed.   Same playbook, over & over  

 

SILENCE ... how dare you try to enlighten the masses.

"Brand had previously pleaded not guilty to five other charges, including rape, sexual assault, and indecent assault, involving four women. These incidents reportedly took place between 1999 and 2005"

 

So the earlier alleged offenses, as mentioned, occurred over 20 years ago, the new ones in 2009?

So the women involved waited all this time to come forward? Seems very strange!

Are these prosecution politically motivated??

Its going to cost a chunk of money to prosecute these cases, maybe half a million pounds of taxpayers money?

 

 

Presumably he didn't take them into a field or an alley but they agreed to enter his house or flat?

Why would women agree to go back to the place of someone who looks like a mafia assassin and years later claim it was rape?

Because they didn't give consent once they saw he was serious?

27 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Presumably he didn't take them into a field or an alley but they agreed to enter his house or flat?

Why would women agree to go back to the place of someone who looks like a mafia assassin and years later claim it was rape?

Because they didn't give consent once they saw he was serious?

 

Maybe they did consent, then after it was over, they changed their minds?

The problem here is if by chance Brand is found not guilty of the crimes, he still has pay his own legal costs.

Another point is the women who came forward, even if they lied, would face no consequences. So they have nothing to lose by lying?

Brand could sue them, but if they have no money, well.??

Of course he could be guilty?😅

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

The problem here is if by chance Brand is found not guilty of the crimes, he still has pay his own legal costs.

Another point is the women who came forward, even if they lied, would face no consequences. So they have nothing to lose by lying?

Brand could sue them, but if they have no money, well.??

Of course he could be guilty?😅

Anyone giving false statements to police or giving false testimony under oath in a court of law is breaking the law, the consequences of which can be severe.

 

So they absolutely have a great deal to loose for lying.

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

Presumably he didn't take them into a field or an alley but they agreed to enter his house or flat?

Why would women agree to go back to the place of someone who looks like a mafia assassin and years later claim it was rape?

Because they didn't give consent once they saw he was serious?

If they didn’t give consent it was by definition rape.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Anyone giving false statements to police or giving false testimony under oath in a court of law is breaking the law, the consequences of which can be severe.

 

So they absolutely have a great deal to loose for lying.

NO!  Evidence does not support that!

 

The chance of complainants being prosecuted for deliberately false allegations is low in practice (~0.6–3% of reported sexual offenses lead to such action, per CPS and academic studies).

 

Practically speaking, with the risk of criminal prosecution for a deliberately false allegation sitting at only 0.6–3% (per CPS data and independent studies), a malicious accuser has very little realistic chance of facing criminal consequences.That low percentage means:

Out of thousands of reported sexual offences each year, only a handful (often single digits to low dozens) result in charges against the complainant for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time.

The vast majority of cases that are dropped, withdrawn, or end in acquittal result in no action whatsoever against the complainant—even if the accused believes it was a lie.

 

For someone determined to make a malicious allegation, the criminal risk is effectively negligible in most cases. The system is designed this way deliberately—to avoid deterring the overwhelming majority of genuine victims who already under-report due to fear of not being believed.

 

39 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

NO!  Evidence does not support that!

 

The chance of complainants being prosecuted for deliberately false allegations is low in practice (~0.6–3% of reported sexual offenses lead to such action, per CPS and academic studies).

 

Practically speaking, with the risk of criminal prosecution for a deliberately false allegation sitting at only 0.6–3% (per CPS data and independent studies), a malicious accuser has very little realistic chance of facing criminal consequences.That low percentage means:

Out of thousands of reported sexual offences each year, only a handful (often single digits to low dozens) result in charges against the complainant for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time.

The vast majority of cases that are dropped, withdrawn, or end in acquittal result in no action whatsoever against the complainant—even if the accused believes it was a lie.

 

For someone determined to make a malicious allegation, the criminal risk is effectively negligible in most cases. The system is designed this way deliberately—to avoid deterring the overwhelming majority of genuine victims who already under-report due to fear of not being believed.

 

 Can you provide some links to substantiate the claims.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/perverting-course-justice-and-wasting-police-time-cases-involving-allegedly#:~:text=Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence.,the course of public justice.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 Can you provide some links to substantiate the claims.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/perverting-course-justice-and-wasting-police-time-cases-involving-allegedly#:~:text=Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence.,the course of public justice.

 

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) published a detailed report in March 2013 titled "Charging Perverting the Course of Justice and Wasting Police Time in Cases Involving Allegedly False Allegations of Rape and Domestic Violence

 

Allegations" (authored by Alison Levitt QC, then Principal Legal Advisor to the DPP).Key findings from the report (covering a 17-month period from January 2011 to May 2012):

 

There were 5,651 prosecutions for rape.

During the same period, there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape (plus a small number for domestic violence or both).

 

This equates to approximately 0.6% (35 out of 5,651) of rape prosecutions involving charges for proven false allegations.

The CPS has repeatedly referenced this study on its website and in guidance to emphasize that false allegations leading to prosecution are rare (while acknowledging they are serious when they occur and are prosecuted robustly where evidence allows).

 

Direct link to the report: https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/legal_guidance/perverting-course-of-justice-march-2013.pdf

 

It's still cited in current CPS pages on rape prosecutions and false allegations.

 

Other independent/academic studies (e.g., Ministry of Justice 2012 research, Home Office reviews) have estimated broader "false" or "malicious" classifications by police at around 2–3% of reported cases (not just prosecuted ones), but the CPS's figure specifically addresses cases where false allegations were proven sufficiently to result in charges against the complainant.

The low prosecution rate for false claims reflects the high evidential threshold required (clear proof of deliberate falsehood), not the absence of unproven or withdrawn cases. This is the most authoritative UK source on the topic.

 

Your link, explicitly references the 2013 report by Alison Levitt QC (the one I cited earlier, with the ~0.6% figure from 2011–2012 data: 35 false allegation prosecutions vs. 5,651 rape prosecutions).

10 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) published a detailed report in March 2013 titled "Charging Perverting the Course of Justice and Wasting Police Time in Cases Involving Allegedly False Allegations of Rape and Domestic Violence

 

Allegations" (authored by Alison Levitt QC, then Principal Legal Advisor to the DPP).Key findings from the report (covering a 17-month period from January 2011 to May 2012):

 

There were 5,651 prosecutions for rape.

During the same period, there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape (plus a small number for domestic violence or both).

 

This equates to approximately 0.6% (35 out of 5,651) of rape prosecutions involving charges for proven false allegations.

The CPS has repeatedly referenced this study on its website and in guidance to emphasize that false allegations leading to prosecution are rare (while acknowledging they are serious when they occur and are prosecuted robustly where evidence allows).

 

Direct link to the report: https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/legal_guidance/perverting-course-of-justice-march-2013.pdf

 

It's still cited in current CPS pages on rape prosecutions and false allegations.

 

Other independent/academic studies (e.g., Ministry of Justice 2012 research, Home Office reviews) have estimated broader "false" or "malicious" classifications by police at around 2–3% of reported cases (not just prosecuted ones), but the CPS's figure specifically addresses cases where false allegations were proven sufficiently to result in charges against the complainant.

The low prosecution rate for false claims reflects the high evidential threshold required (clear proof of deliberate falsehood), not the absence of unproven or withdrawn cases. This is the most authoritative UK source on the topic.

 

Your link, explicitly references the 2013 report by Alison Levitt QC (the one I cited earlier, with the ~0.6% figure from 2011–2012 data: 35 false allegation prosecutions vs. 5,651 rape prosecutions).

 

Thank you, you’ve  just contracted that accusers giving false testimony do face consequences.

Does the COS mention multiple accusers coordinating to give false testimony?

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Thank you, you’ve  just contracted that accusers giving false testimony do face consequences.

Does the COS mention multiple accusers coordinating to give false testimony?

Yes, they can, but as I said the chances are extremely low as already stated!

 

"The chance of complainants being prosecuted for deliberately false allegations is low in practice (~0.6–3% of reported sexual offenses lead to such action, per CPS and academic studies)."

 

Your quote..."So they absolutely have a great deal to loose for lying." is inaccurate!

4 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Yes, they can, but as I said the chances are extremely low as already stated!

 

"The chance of complainants being prosecuted for deliberately false allegations is low in practice (~0.6–3% of reported sexual offenses lead to such action, per CPS and academic studies)."

You are omitting the consequences of being found guilty of perjury/perverting the course of justice.

 

Regardless

 

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Another point is the women who came forward, even if they lied, would face no consequences. So they have nothing to lose by lying?

Brand could sue them, but if they have no money, well.??

Of course he could be guilty?😅

 

As you have demonstrated, they absolutely have something to lose by lying, their liberty.

 

But with lying being proven in 0.6% of cases, the odds are not in favor of Brand if he relies on that accusation as a defense.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If they didn’t give consent it was by definition rape.

With the caveat that the accusers initials are not TR, in which case the accuser gets exiled to Russia and the whole rape censored. Ill never understand leftist politics. Never

10 hours ago, webfact said:

The CPS outlined that the new charges pertain to separate women, reflecting the extensive and ongoing nature of these allegations.

 

So how many more cases have still to come crawling out of the woodwork, I wonder?

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are omitting the consequences of being found guilty of perjury/perverting the course of justice.

 

Regardless

 

 

As you have demonstrated, they absolutely have something to lose by lying, their liberty.

 

I agree there is a very small chance they could be prosecuted, as i have already stated, several times.

 

Once again.......

 

Proven deliberate falsehoods leading to charges against the complainant happen in only ~0.6–3% of reported sexual offense cases (per longstanding CPS data and studies).

Most failed/withdrawn/acquitted cases result in no action against the complainant—because proving malicious intent (not just inconsistency or retraction) is very hard.

 

Even if found guilty of perverting the course for justice, the sentence is typical 1–3 years) or wasting police time (max 6 months).

 

Compared to being guilty of rape, as in Brand, sentence could be Multiple counts/victims → Sentences often run consecutively or partly consecutively, leading to totals well above a single count (e.g., 15–30+ years possible for several rapes).

 

40 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

I agree there is a very small chance they could be prosecuted, as i have already stated, several times.

 

Once again.......

 

Proven deliberate falsehoods leading to charges against the complainant happen in only ~0.6–3% of reported sexual offense cases (per longstanding CPS data and studies).

Most failed/withdrawn/acquitted cases result in no action against the complainant—because proving malicious intent (not just inconsistency or retraction) is very hard.

 

Even if found guilty of perverting the course for justice, the sentence is typical 1–3 years) or wasting police time (max 6 months).

 

Compared to being guilty of rape, as in Brand, sentence could be Multiple counts/victims → Sentences often run consecutively or partly consecutively, leading to totals well above a single count (e.g., 15–30+ years possible for several rapes).

 

And both have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a jury in an open court of law.

 

 

10 hours ago, bendejo said:

I think he is an obnoxious, babbling ass but I don't know about these charges.  He gets groupies coming at him the way rock stars do,  I think somebody up the chain over there doesn't like him.

 

 

10 hours ago, daveAustin said:

^^^ Agree. Can’t stand the bloke, but these are likely just trying it on for the payday. He clearly put it about but how easy is it for a woman to turn a consensual assignation into rape? The way it is nowadays regards the demonisation of red-blooded males, the system and media lap that up. 

 

7 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Dangerous speaking facts against big Pharma narratives and being conservative. Doesnt help being a God botherer too. His 3 real "crimes".

 

7 hours ago, angryguy said:

I liked him and diddy in get him to the greek. They seem targets of the incel left

 

6 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Speak against the machine, and it will eat you up.   Same plot line, decades old, new complaints, who would have guessed.   Same playbook, over & over  

 

SILENCE ... how dare you try to enlighten the masses.

 

6 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

"Brand had previously pleaded not guilty to five other charges, including rape, sexual assault, and indecent assault, involving four women. These incidents reportedly took place between 1999 and 2005"

 

So the earlier alleged offenses, as mentioned, occurred over 20 years ago, the new ones in 2009?

So the women involved waited all this time to come forward? Seems very strange!

Are these prosecution politically motivated??

Its going to cost a chunk of money to prosecute these cases, maybe half a million pounds of taxpayers money?

 

 

 

5 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

Maybe they did consent, then after it was over, they changed their minds?

 

59 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

With the caveat that the accusers initials are not TR, in which case the accuser gets exiled to Russia and the whole rape censored. Ill never understand leftist politics. Never

Wow, the AN conspiracy theorist loons are out in force today.  Immediately come out to defend the man and blame in on "the left" who are trying to "silence him" and someone even thinking it was orders from up high and "big pharma". Oh my, so "big pharma" can now order people to fabricate claims and influence the courts because a man on telly with a beard said something against them.

Never consider for a moment that maybe there's something in it.

Mind boggling fanatacism.

18 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, the AN conspiracy theorist loons are out in force today.  Immediately come out to defend the man and blame in on "the left" who are trying to "silence him" and someone even thinking it was orders from up high and "big pharma". Oh my, so "big pharma" can now order people to fabricate claims and influence the courts because a man on telly with a beard said something against them.

Never consider for a moment that maybe there's something in it.

Mind boggling fanatacism.

No defending the man, don't know him.   But anyone speaking out about the deep state, seem to get the accusations & charges, 'discrediting', and again, something not reported decade or more ago.

 

Call me crazy, but that's a bit suspect 

It's so long ago it will just be his word against theirs.

 

Given his outspoken anti-establishment political views, he will likely be found guilty.

35 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And both have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a jury in an open court of law.

 

 

Yes, but here's the 'rub'

Just for the sake of argument, lets say Brand gets found 'not guilty?

 

A "not guilty" verdict only means the jury was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the offenses happened as alleged.

It does not mean the jury decided the women deliberately lied—it could mean reasonable doubt for many reasons (evidential gaps, consent disputes, credibility issues without malice).etc

 

There would need to be a separate decision to investigate/prosecute the complainants

 

The police/CPS would only consider charges against the women if there is independent, strong evidence that they knowingly and deliberately made false allegations (e.g., confessions, fabricated evidence like fake texts/injuries, proven major contradictions showing intent to deceive).

This requires a new, separate investigation—it's not automatic post-acquittal.

 

Proving malicious intent (not just inconsistency, retraction, or mistaken belief) is extremely hard.

CPS policy is deliberately cautious: They avoid prosecuting complainants unless the case is blatant, to prevent deterring genuine victims.

Result: Only ~0.6–3%, as previously stated, of reported sexual offense cases ever lead to charges against the complainant (per longstanding CPS data).

In the vast majority of acquittals or dropped cases, nothing happens to the complainant—no charges, no further action.

 

Brand could be fully acquitted, and the women would almost certainly face no criminal consequences unless there was overwhelming separate proof they deliberately fabricated everything (which is uncommon).

The system does not treat an acquittal as proof of lying, and there's no obligation on police/CPS to pursue the women afterward.

This is exactly why many critics say the falsely accused are in a "lose-lose" position: Massive life damage from the allegation alone, with very little realistic chance of accountability against proven malicious accusers.

 

But if he's guilty, he should get what the Judge says of course?

When I read these kind of things I do so with astonishment knowing that the guy is decent looking, wealthy and famous, and anyone in that position has beautiful women literally  throwing themselves at him. So there's never any need to force yourself on anyone when you're in that situation, and if he does so he's just a pathological super freak with no moral compass. 

 

Though one never Knows with these kind of allegations generally speaking when there  is enough smoke, there's some fire, and the number of accusations that have been leveled against him have been quite significant. 

 

I would say that the Brand has a very diminished brand at this point.