The defence has begun presenting its case in Russell Brand's trial at Southwark crown court, where the 51-year-old comedian and actor faces allegations of rape and sexual assault against six women. The prosecution wrapped up nearly two weeks of evidence this morning, at which point Brand took the stand, presumably relieved that the talking portion of the proceedings had finally arrived.

Before that, the jury was told by the judge, Mr Justice Bennathan, that the indecent assault charge against Brand has been amended to attempted indecent assault. The charge relates to an allegation that Brand grabbed a female MTV worker by the arm and tried to drag her into a toilet. Bennathan explained he had concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the original indecent assault charge - a distinction that is legally meaningful and, one imagines, of little comfort to anyone involved.

The court also heard that Brand was interviewed by police on four occasions: November and December 2023, January 2024 and July 2025. His pre-prepared statement from November 2023 was read aloud by prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones, in which Brand said: "As I have repeatedly stated publicly and written about extensively, I led a very promiscuous life in the past, which I have spent years openly denouncing. I have never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity."

Brand has been charged with three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted indecent assault, with allegations dating between 1999 and 2009. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Under questioning from his barrister, Ian Winter, Brand went through the indictment and answered "no" to each offence. Winter then asked about the second count of attempted indecent assault - the alleged 2001 toilet-dragging incident involving the MTV worker - and whether Brand "intended any non-consensual assault, sexual or otherwise" on the woman.

On the first alleged complainant, a woman who says she was raped by Brand after meeting him on the fringes of the Labour party conference in Bournemouth in 1999, Winter asked whether Brand had obtained consent. Brand told the court: "Consent is fundamental, essential, necessary and, indeed, in many ways more important than sex itself." He added there was "no question in my mind" that he got consent "because of the talking and the intimacy."

Brand told the court the woman had invited him to her hotel room, and that he "thought at the bare minimum it's better than sleeping in shared accommodation" with his team, adding he "hoped and thought that there was a possibility of sex." Romance, it seems, has many dialects.

Brand also told jurors that around the time of the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary - which reported the allegations as part of an investigation with the Times and the Sunday Times - his baby son required open heart surgery at Great Ormond Street hospital in London. He said the hospital refused to let him stay with his son "due to the materials published." Brand added that his "entire life has been consumed by these allegations" and that he had "devoted myself to these matters."

The trial continues.