MTV Worker Feared Being “Seen As Trouble” After Russell Brand Incident
Editor’s note: This story contains details of alleged sexual offenses that some readers may find distressing.
A former MTV employee has said she didn’t initially report her allegation of rape against Russell Brand because she feared being “seen as trouble.”
Giving evidence at Brand’s trial at London’s Southwark Crown Court on Monday, the woman alleged that she was orally raped by the Despicable Me star in July 2004 when attending the birthday party of a TV producer. Brand denies all charges and has pleaded not guilty.
The woman, whom we are calling Complainant 3 (C3) because she has a lifelong right to anonymity, claimed that Brand dragged her into the toilet of Soho’s Nordic Bar and forced his penis into her mouth. She further alleged that Brand grabbed her breasts while chatting to her at the bar.
Under cross-examination from Brand’s barrister, C3 was grilled about why she did not report the alleged rape until 2023, when she became aware of The Times of London and Channel 4’s investigation into Brand’s conduct around women.
C3, who gave evidence from behind a screen so Brand could not see her in the courtroom, said she feared that filing a police complaint about the Forgetting Sarah Marshall star in 2004 could have led to her being “seen as trouble” in the TV industry.
When Ian Winter KC asked whether she was concerned for her job, she replied that the “media industry protects its own,” but stressed that her employment was “way down my list of concerns” at the time. Earlier, she said: “I wanted to change the narrative, so I wasn’t the victim.”
Winter, Brand’s barrister, pressed C3 on why she did not report the star to MTV. C3 replied that Brand was not employed by the now-Skydance-owned network when the alleged rape occurred. At the time of the incident, Brand was hosting Channel 4 show Big Brother’s EFourum, later renamed Big Brother’s Big Mouth.
Her testimony echoed evidence from another woman, Complainant 2 (C2), who also worked at MTV in the noughties and did not complain about her interaction with Brand in 2001. C2 — who has never met C3 — alleged that Brand attempted to pull her into the restroom at MTV’s offices and had a “desperate, wild-eyed look.”
C2 told Southwark Crown Court last week: “I spoke to colleagues but never mentioned it to employers because I was scared, and I had got away. I thought it would be my word against his. He is a big asset [for MTV] and I just work there, and I’ve got a mortgage to pay, so what is the point in making life hard for myself.”
C3 claimed that she phoned the TV producer “a couple of days” after the alleged toilet incident at his birthday party and warned him that Brand was a “sexual predator” who attempted to sexually assault her. She stopped short of alleging she was orally raped, however.
In a witness statement to the police in 2023, the producer recalled the 2004 phone call. He said C3 told him that Brand got “pushy,” “aggressive,” and that she was “scared.” The producer alleged that he “made contact” with Brand’s associates and told them his behavior was “not acceptable,” according to the statement, which was read out in court by prosecution barrister Riel Karmy-Jones.
During cross-examination, Brand’s barrister repeatedly insisted that the toilet incident was consensual and that C3 was a willing participant. C3, who became audibly emotional during her testimony, denied that it was consensual.
Brand faces three charges of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one of indecent assault based on allegations made by six women. Brand will set out his defense later in the trial.
The court was told repeatedly that Brand declined to answer questions when interviewed by police. He instead relied on a prepared statement, in which he claimed that he did not recall meeting the women and did not remember their names. He said any sexual contact was consensual.
The trial continues.
Max Goldbart contributed to this report
