Since the Russell Brand verdict there has been an unsurprising uptick in commentary via social media about his case. A lot of the posts and comments seem to particularly associate his conviction and sentencing with his identity as someone critiquing the establishment from the political right and with his prominent public conversion to Christianity, I have particularly observed three types of comment as follows:
1. Arguments that this was a conspiracy theory. The establishment brought him down to silence him because of politics.
2. Arguments that the sentencing is unfair and harsh because he has children and was reforming his life
3. Arguments that the conviction was based on her word against his and that the women’s witness is invalid because they were promiscuous and had engaged with sexual behaviour already.
I’ve already engaged substantially with the first point, particularly here and here and so don’t intend to add more on that in the post beyond to state that I think we are seeing a concerning trend. Trial by jury is one of those things that is normally considered to be an important right under British law. It’s the kind of thing that we expect to see those identifying as patriot as defending and lauding. Indeed, in recent times, there have been critiques of the Governments attempt to reduce and restrict jury trials specifically from the right. Yet we have had recent cases including Russell Brand’s and Tommy Robinsons where juries have convicted and the immediate response by too many supporters of both has been to attack the legitimacy of the court and question the jury’s suitability without any evidence provided beyond conjecture.
This is important because such tactics risk undermining confidence in a crucial institution within the rule of law. We cannot at this point say for certain that there is a purposeful strategy at work but we do seem to be observing an emerging trend.
And I want to stick with that point just for a little while longer because there is an example of where this goes in an interview between Andre Walker and Christopher Wickland that you can watch here. I want to draw your attention to what Wickland says at 6 minutes in when Walker asks him about the Brand case and suggests that it was only when Brand became right-wing that he was targeted by the Law. Wickland says (note this is copied from the transcript).
Yeah. Yeah. Again, it’s, you know, we see more and more this kind of two-tier justice system. Um, I I can only com the conclusion, and it breaks my heart to say this, that, uh, I I think our our systems are broken now. We we see that it’s almost intentional. It’s almost deliberate a grinding down of the people where where seeming as you say right-wing people or center center right seem to have the book thrown at them but those that sit more on the left seem to literally sometimes um and uh and for me now I’ve had to come to a conclusion I woke up the other day actually thinking in the middle of the night the early hours of the morning I think that the police are no longer for us. I think the state is no longer for us. I think the government is no longer for us. I don’t believe the judiciary system is anymore for us. And uh that’s that’s a hard reality to wake up to. So that’s that’s kind of the conclusion I’ve come to. It might be a rather dark conclusion, but it’s the only thing that the facts seem to stack up that as you say, if you’re leftwing, you get away with it, but if you’re rightwing, you get the book thrown at you.
I want you to take that in. A man has been convicted for the anal rape of a young woman who was at the time 21 and what does Wickland say? He says that the police and the judicial system (which includes the jury) are not on our side (meaning those who share his political and theological outlook). In truth though the police and courts turned out to be on the side of the victim of a vile and wicked crime. Yet that woman is excluded, isolated, banished. She does not seem to be considered “one of us”. Let that sink in.
However, in this article I want to focus our attention more on the second two arguments. In the second argument it is suggested that sentencing was unfair and harsh in Brand’s case. First there are clear sentencing guidelines for rape and sexual assault just as there are for other criminal offences. Many people, mums and dads will go to prison this year, some for short sentences some for lengthy ones. Where were you when those cases went to sentencing?
This is particularly important because just the other year, MPs introduced a change to the law which had the impact of decriminalising abortion including late term abortion with regards to the mothers. The presenting issue was that mothers had been put through the criminal justice process and risked conviction and sentencing for using self-administered drugs to effect an abortion. Later in some cases it was discovered that they had used the drugs later in their pregnancy than permitted under law. One argument raised with regards to the law change was that the law as it stood risked sending mothers to prison leaving other children at home without a parent. Now, I opposed the change to the law and remain opposed to abortion and I would expect many of my readers to agree with me on that. However, it is reasonable to ask, if you believe that Brand’s sentence was harsh given his family circumstances, would you recognise that some might have the same concern with regards to the mothers in those abortion cases?
There is a case for penal reform and over the years many have advocated for change questioning whether prison works. However, this argument should not just come up when it suits us because we agree with someone’s politics.
With regards to the third argument, the case was not his word against hers. If you disagree with the verdict then go through the evidence scrutinize it and explain why you agree with the defence. You might still disagree with the verdict and providing you accept that this is just your armchair opinion, then that’s your entitlement.
What you will get to see is how a case actually works. The police will have investigated the allegations. They will have questioned Brand and witnesses. The case then went to the CPS who decided that there was enough evidence and that it was in the public interest to prosecute. The case was then heard with prosecution and defence lawyers building their cases through marshalling the evidence and cross-examining witnesses including the victims and Brand. The jury then had to determine beyond reasonable doubt that Brand was guilty. It is worth observing that they did not reach that conclusion on all counts. This is suggestive that they took their responsibility seriously. They did not just take her word against his because they didn’t like him or his politics.
What has concerned me most though has been the particularly horrific nature of some comments. I particularly think of those who have sought to question the truth or validity of the victims’ allegations because it took them a long time to come forward, because they had promiscuous lifestyles and because they initially engaged in consensual sexual activity with Brand. These are exactly the kinds of arguments that historically have made it so hard for victims of rape, sexual violence, domestic abuse, coercion and intimidation to come forward.
This matters because of its wider implications. Remember that these were young women, drawn to a famous person with a reportedly charismatic personality. One was 21 when Brand was 33. There are power dynamics at play relative to wider questions about older employers and younger employees, teachers and students, pastors and congregants. Then there is the question about where consent begins and ends. Whatever our opinions on the morality of people’s behaviour, this is about criminality. Consent is not a general, exhaustive and permanent permission. Willing engagement in some sexual activities is not consent to penetrative sex, consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to further activities that are felt unwanted, degrading and painful. This also is relevant to the debate about rape within marriage. I note that there is a grievous tendency in some quarters to argue that marriage vows create an obligation on a wife to accept sex at any time, in any place and in any way. This not only goes against the law but is in contradiction with Paul’s teaching about mutuality in 1 Corinthians 7.
Finally, contrast what is being said about Brand and how many have responded to the case of George Floyd. It seems deeply hypocritical to dismiss the actual unlawful killing of George Floyd, his murder because he had a criminal history, ignoring his efforts to turn his life around whilst insisting that the judge should have gone easy on Brand, or even in some comments, that the case should not have been brought in the first place because Brand was seeking rehabilitation and to turn his life around or because he is a husband with children.
Again, we need to look at the responses we are making to this case and ask why we might respond in a particular way to one case. What would motivate us to treat Brand differently to others. Those who have been quick to suggest that those who support his conviction do so because of political or religious reasons need to consider the extent to which their own support for Brand is based on the same motivations they accuse others of. It is important as well to reflect on the wider implications of the conclusions we draw and arguments we make about this case.
