The second week of Russell Brand’s trial has focused on a complainant’s account of an alleged assault in a Soho bar toilet in 2004, setting her description of fear and force against the defendant’s denial that any non-consensual conduct occurred.

Reports on the left foreground the woman’s recorded police interview, in which she said a conversation about Brand’s work on Big Brother’s Big Mouth changed abruptly. She alleged that he grabbed her breasts and pulled her into the toilets, where she said she told him: “What are you doing? I don’t want to do this.”¹ She described closing her eyes and trying “not to be there” during the alleged rape, and said she was left in shock.²

Right-leaning coverage similarly reports her allegation that Brand had a “weird, maniacal grin… like a clown” before the incident. It also records her account that, after leaving the cubicle, Brand acted normally and suggested they exchange numbers.² Both strands of coverage present the evidence as allegations put before the jury, rather than findings of fact.

The contrast is clearest in the defence case. During cross-examination, Brand’s barrister Ian Winter KC suggested that the woman had willingly gone into the lavatory and had been charmed by Brand. She rejected that account, saying: “I wasn’t charmed in the slightest.”¹ A separate report notes that she said she had met him only shortly before the alleged assault.²

Brand has pleaded not guilty to three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault involving six complainants. He denies all charges and maintains that any sexual contact was consensual. The trial at Southwark Crown Court continues.