Two rape trials are being heard simultaneously in two courtrooms in south London. In one, the defendant is renowned actor and comedian Russell Brand, while in the other he is a 32-year-old data analyst referred to as Michael. The difference between the trials lies not only in the charges, but also in the number of people observing them.
The case against Brand at Southwark Crown Court has been followed by 108 journalists. Photographers and television crews are stationed outside the building, while podcasts about the trial have been recorded by at least five media outlets, including the BBC, “Sky” and “The Times”. Brand himself has also published episodes in which he combines prayers with comments about his experience in court.
“I felt very, very encouraged,” he says after a court security officer whispers to him: “The whole country is behind you, mate.” Brand denies all seven charges – three counts of rape, three sexual assaults and one attempted indecent assault, involving six women and covering the period from 1999 to 2009.
There are no cameras in the neighboring courtroom
On the fourth day of Brand’s trial, the journalist who described both proceedings walks to the Inner London Crown Court. The journey takes about 15 minutes, but the atmosphere is completely different. There are no photographers, no queue outside the courtroom and no press crews. She is the only media representative present.
There, Michael is on trial over an incident that took place on June 17, 2025. According to the prosecution, he spotted a 17-year-old girl while driving a BMW to a hair salon and spoke to her. Later, she and her 15-year-old friend were driven to an apartment. The prosecution alleges that Michael raped the girl four times over the course of about an hour.
The following day, she reported the incident to the police. In court, now 18 years old, she gives evidence from behind a screen that allows the judge and lawyers to see her, while concealing her face from the defendant and the public.
The same legal question, different public interest
In both trials, the defense does not deny that there was sexual contact between the defendants and the women. Its main argument is that the contact was consensual. The lawyers acknowledge that their clients’ behavior may have been indecent, unpleasant or immoral, but argue that bad behavior is not necessarily a crime.
In the case against Brand, the defense also emphasizes the long period before the allegations were reported. The prosecution, for its part, describes the defendant as someone who sought sexual contact “when and how he wanted”. Brand tells the court that consent is “fundamental, necessary and even more important than sex”.
The two trials demonstrate the same judicial reality – allegations are examined through testimony, questioning and evidence, rather than through the defendant’s fame. In one case, attention is drawn by Brand’s career and public image. In the other, the central question remains the same, but without the cameras: whether consent was given.
Sources: theguardian.com