Harvey Weinstein’s fall from grace in October 2017 posed a serious threat to Russell Brand’s lucrative show business career, not to mention his reputation.
The comedian had reinvented himself as a dutiful father after marrying Laura Gallacher two months earlier. But his previous behavior did not fit into the enlightened new “MeToo” era. A known predator who claimed to have committed more than a thousand sexual conquests, he was notorious for telling misogynistic “jokes” about his degrading exploitation of women in stand-up shows.
Three years earlier, for example, Brand had uttered the punchline on a West End stage: “Oh, I raped someone once… and killed them.” On a previous stand-up tour, he had bragged about performing grotesque sex acts on partners , until “her mascara runs a little.”
In a best-selling autobiography, he confessed to “spitting in the face” of a girlfriend during rough sex and said he later compiled an extensive “victim list” of “women I wronged because of my sex addiction.” ‘.
It was quite a track record for a supposedly mainstream comedian and Guardian columnist. So on the morning of October 22, Brand found himself walking something of a tightrope as he appeared in the studios of Channel Four’s popular daytime chat show Sunday Brunch.
When he left the office a few hours later, he was already in a bit of a PR crisis.
On the morning of October 22, Brand found himself walking something of a tightrope as he appeared in the studios of Channel Four’s popular daytime chat show Sunday Brunch
The culprit was an at best questionable – and at worst deeply tasteless – joke he made about the supposedly mediocre program during a discussion about Strictly Come Dancing. Sunday Brunch co-host, celebrity chef Simon Rimmer, took part in the BBC show. Brand asked the other co-host, Tim Lovejoy, if he had attended any live tapings.
“You’re there every week, aren’t you, Lovejoy?” Brand joked. ‘What’s your motivation for lurking among the dancers in Elstree on a Saturday?’ ‘I’d better come, do I have to support Simon?’ Hang in there, someone will get drunk enough at some point!’
Brand’s gag, of course, was based on the idea that celebrities routinely target drunk women in order to take advantage of them. Many spectators found this poor form.
“Russell Brand makes me sick.” “Another disgusting man making rape jokes,” someone wrote on Twitter. “Given the current climate, a very poor…comment from Russell Brand,” said a second. “So it’s not funny. Vulgar and childish,” wrote a third.
Soon, complaints about the joke went viral under the hashtag #MeToo. That’s when the Metro newspaper decided to cover the controversy on its website, with an article headlined “Russell Brand Makes ‘Inappropriate Sexual Assault Joke’ on Live TV.” It went online exactly at 12:39 p.m.
At this point, Brand had two viable options. He could defuse the controversy by apologizing. Or he could keep his head down and hope that the, in the grand scheme of things, relatively insignificant argument would subside on its own.
Instead, Brand chose a third option. One that has always been followed by selfish rich people. He hired a top lawyer to threaten people.
His chosen attack dog was one of the most famous defamation specialists of our time: Jenny Afia.
A partner at Schillings, the combative law firm whose clients have ranged from Roman Abramovich and Elton John to Captain Tom Moore’s family, Afia is perhaps best known for her work for noted feminist Meghan Markle
Russell Brand breaks his silence and denies the serious allegations ahead of the Channel 4 broadcast
A partner at Schillings, the combative law firm whose clients have ranged from Roman Abramovich and Elton John to Captain Tom Moore’s family, Afia is perhaps best known for her work for noted feminist Meghan Markle.
She was featured as an interviewee in both Prince Harry’s recent Netflix documentary and the 2021 BBC show The Princes And The Press, where she told host Amol Rajan that claims the Duchess was a “difficult one.” or demanding boss” are “simply not true” and that the term bullying should under no circumstances be applied to the behavior of her royal client.
Representing Russell Brand, Afia proved similarly strident. At 4:42 p.m. sharp on October 22, just three hours after the Metro article was published, she sent a hostile email to the newspaper with the subject line “Urgent.”
“The article alleges that our client joked about and trivialized sexual assault,” Afia wrote. “This is untrue… Of course, some viewers may not find the joke funny, as comedy is a subjective experience. “But it is completely inaccurate and highly defamatory to suggest that the matter is about sexual assault.”
The letter ended with a demand that the article be removed “urgently,” adding that Mr. Brand wanted the newspaper to agree “not to repeat” the claim that he made the inappropriate joke and to “reimburse his legal fees.” “. It ended with the words: “Our client reserves his position regarding damages pending your response.”
Like most legal threats, it was immediately reviewed by lawyers at the newspaper, a sister publication of the Chron. They concluded that the article accurately reflected what Brand had said on television, as well as viewer reaction. His complaint was therefore false and Afia’s letter did not deserve a response. The article remains available on Metro’s website today.
However, other, less robust newspapers may not have been so dismissive. Some may have been intimidated into taking down the piece. And therein lies the catch.
Because while this episode may seem relatively frivolous, the core approach is anything but. Brand’s contentious response to legitimate investigations helps explain how the self-confessed sex offender managed to escape, as revealed in the Dispatches documentary last Saturday means hiding from the public eye.
Simply put, Russell Brand has employed a number of highly paid lawyers over the years to not only silence women who complained about his behavior, but also to intimidate and, in some cases, discourage news organizations from bringing his alleged misdeeds to light bring.
Russell Brand at the MTV Video Music Awards in Los Angeles in September 2008. The comedian has denied the allegations made against him
Brand’s PR firm MBC PR and talent agent Tavistock Wood are no longer promoting him as clients, and his publisher Bluebird, an imprint of Pan Macmillan, have severed their relationship. Pictured: Brand with his wife Laura
It is important to emphasize that this is not a criticism of the lawyers themselves. They act on the client’s instructions and in what they believe is their best interest. While Afia’s work for Brand may invite scrutiny in retrospect, it doesn’t necessarily contradict her company’s stated mission of being “ethical and principled.”
In a development that will no doubt come as a relief to Meghan Markle and other customers, I assume that neither she nor Schillings are now representing the comic.
Instead, he has been represented in recent weeks by a former colleague of Afia called Mark Thomson, whose firm Thomson Heath represents “senior political figures” as well as “FTSE companies and their executives, royal families, governments and celebrities” and has acted for singer Lily Allen and Kate Bush and actress Olivia Colman.
Brand’s use of aggressive lawyers was featured heavily in last week’s documentary Dispatches, which recounted how an alleged victim, “Alice,” contacted his literary agent Tavistock Wood in 2020 to make a formal complaint about the star .
The woman, who was 16 when Brand, then 31, began sleeping with her, left a message claiming she had been exploited and sexually abused. In response, she received a detailed email from an as-yet-unnamed law firm.
“You have made contact three times and I suspect you are trying to get money,” it said. “This would be an extremely serious matter if it were.” Please note that any allegations made by you over the phone will be vehemently denied and all rights reserved.
Alice recalled: “His lawyer emailed me, was very aggressive, said very clearly that I was after money and suggested that what I was doing was almost blackmail.” I pointed out that I never talked about money, I never asked for money, you are the only person who has ever asked for money. That’s how that communication ended.”
A second incident mentioned in the documentary involved an ex-girlfriend of Russell Brand named Jordan Martin, with whom he had a volatile six-month relationship in 2007.
In 2014, Ms. Martin, a model, published a book about her affair called “kNot: Entanglement With A Celebrity.” Written in the third person, it describes an incident in which an angry fire allegedly sexually assaulted her in a room at the Lowry Hotel in Manchester.
Brand’s use of aggressive lawyers was featured heavily in last week’s documentary Dispatches, which recounted how an alleged victim, “Alice,” contacted his literary agent Tavistock Wood in 2020 to make a formal complaint about the star
The remaining shows of Brand’s Bipolarisation tour have been postponed and the Metropolitan Police said it had received a report of a suspected sexual assault in the wake of media allegations against the comedian and actor
“He slides his hand down the front of her low-hanging jeans … into her underwear and presses a finger inside her,” the report says. “She’s not ready for this penetration.” She doesn’t find it sensual or pleasurable either. She’s not sure he intends to either.’
Days before the 2015 election, in which Brand supported Labor leader Ed Miliband, the Mail on Sunday published an interview with Martin in which she made a series of grisly claims about his behavior. Before publication, they presented various allegations to the comedian’s representatives.
In response, the newspaper received a long letter from Brand’s then-lawyer, Mark Bateman, of a firm called Archerfield Partners, which said Brand had disputed a number of the claims and threatened to sue if they were repeated.
“The allegations that our client was aggressive or threatening toward Ms. Martin are completely false,” it said. “In particular, the allegations that our client falsely imprisoned Ms. Martin; Ms. Martin sexually abused; and/or attacked Ms. Martin are highly defamatory and untrue.
“The allegations that our client was cruel or manipulative are untrue.” He wasn’t mocking her for her ability to have children; he didn’t tell her to take the morning-after pill even though he said he wanted children with her; he didn’t stop her from seeing friends or family; he neither hinted nor questioned whether she was sexually attracted to her brother; “He didn’t break her phone.”
The letter denied further allegations of sexual behavior that were not appropriate for publication in a family newspaper. The conclusion was: “Should the false and highly defamatory allegations allegedly made by Ms. Martin be repeated and published by you, our client will take immediate legal action.”
As the Dispatches documentary notes, these threats did not stop the Mail on Sunday from publishing an interview with Ms Martin. However, the article did not contain some of the more outrageous allegations, including any references to the alleged sexual assault.
Again, there is no suggestion that Mr. Bateman, acting at Brand’s direction, behaved unethically or improperly in representing a client. He no longer represents the comedian. Likewise, we must remember that Brand has denied any wrongdoing.
Archerfield also appeared for Brand in a second case that raised significant questions about his alleged treatment of women, this time in 2014 and 2015.
This was a Hungarian masseuse called Szilvia Berki, who had been hired by Brand’s then-girlfriend, heiress Jemima Goldsmith, to accompany Brand in June 2014 at her £15 million mansion, Kiddington Hall, near Chipping Norton in Oxfordshire massage.
Berki, who advertised her services on a number of websites, including a personal website where she described herself as a “full-figured, curvy BBW.” [Big Beautiful Woman] “A woman in her late 20s” who said: “I am a qualified masseuse with valid health insurance” agreed a fee of £500 for the session, which was scheduled for the comedian’s birthday.
But after Berki was taken to the venue from her home in Wimbledon by Goldsmith’s driver, she was told her services were no longer required. A controversial incident followed in which Berki claimed to have been physically assaulted by Brand and assaulted by Goldsmith’s Alsatian.
Goldsmith and Brand denied allegations of wrongdoing and insisted they ordered a “standard” massage, not a sexual massage
Although she was later paid the £500 fee, Berki began emailing news outlets about the whole thing and about a week later she reported the incident to Thames Valley Police, who launched an investigation.
Goldsmith and Brand denied allegations of wrongdoing and insisted they ordered a “standard” massage, not a sexual massage. The police investigation was discontinued. However, Berki continued to post about the incident on social media.
The couple initially told Archerfield to make an effort to keep the story out of the newspapers. While several efforts to this end were successful, details of the police investigation finally made headlines in August. They then used the law firm to prevent the masseuse from further voicing the allegations.
They were granted an anti-harassment injunction in late 2014. It was made permanent in October 2015. The judge in the case, Ms Justice Carr, concluded that Berki’s claims appeared “internally contradictory” and that the pair were likely to prove them false. These were, she wrote, “extremely private and sensitive matters.”
To this day, Berki is prohibited from speaking publicly about details of the incident. But many other women who have crossed Brand’s path over the years remain free to speak out. Despite the best efforts of Brand and the various top-notch lawyers he has employed over the years, other complaints are finally being heard.