Hearing Adjourns After Defence Asks Judge for Mercy
What Did Russell Brand’s Lawyer Ask The Judge To Consider?
“We invite mercy.” With those words, Russell Brand’s barrister asked Mr Justice Bennathan to consider what a long prison sentence would mean for Brand’s wife and three young children. Earlier on Monday 9 November, the judge at Southwark Crown Court had heard from the women Brand was convicted of attacking. The woman he raped described the trauma as “never-ending”.
The court adjourned shortly after 12.30pm. Mr Justice Bennathan said he aimed to pass sentence at 2pm GMT. As of 12.53pm, the length of Brand’s prison term had yet to be announced.
Why The Defence Asked For Mercy
Ian Winter KC made two requests on Brand’s behalf. The first concerned the man before the court. The last of the offences took place in 2009, and Winter argued that Brand had changed in the intervening 17 years. He pointed to Brand’s religious work and the help he said his client had given others. He also acknowledged a limit to that account. People had contacted the defence about Brand’s good deeds, but they had been unwilling to give their accounts publicly in court.
Winter’s second request concerned the rape itself. He argued that the judge should distinguish between the sexual activity to which the woman had agreed and the act for which the jury convicted Brand. Her consent had limits concerning both the type of sex and the use of a condom. Winter also disputed the prosecution’s view that Brand’s treatment of her afterwards added to her humiliation.
That part of the argument mattered because it went directly to the number of years under discussion. The prosecution put the rape in the highest category of harm and proposed a starting point of 12 years. Winter placed it between the second and third categories. He was asking the judge to begin lower even before considering Brand’s family circumstances.
What The Women Told The Court
A jury convicted Brand on Thursday 5 November of raping one woman and sexually assaulting three others. At sentencing, the women could tell the judge what had happened in their lives since the offences. One woman who came to court wanted only the judge to see her as she spoke. The court arranged for curtains to be drawn.
The passage of time carried particular weight that morning. For the defence, the years since 2009 were an opportunity for Brand to demonstrate that he had changed. For the woman he raped, those same years measured how long she had lived with the consequences. Another woman, whom Brand sexually assaulted, told the court she saw no remorse in him.
What The Judge Was Due To Decide At 2pm
The jury had already returned its verdicts. The question for Monday afternoon was what sentence Brand would receive for the four offences. The figure of 12 years heard that morning was the prosecution’s proposed starting point for the rape count. It was still possible for the judge to take a different view of the harm or to reach a different overall term.
Mr Justice Bennathan had already told Brand to expect a significant prison sentence. His afternoon remarks were due to give the public something neither barrister could provide during the morning hearing: the term he had chosen and his reasons for it. Sky News had permission to broadcast those remarks.
