Russell Brand’s sexual-assault trial begins with jury selection

The seven charges remain allegations

The charges concern six women and alleged conduct over a period spanning 1999 to 2009. Their number and legal categories describe what prosecutors have brought for the court to consider; they do not establish that any offence occurred.

Brand’s not-guilty pleas put each charge in dispute. His denial of sexual activity without consent is part of the position he has taken as the proceedings begin. The jury’s eventual task will be to consider the case presented in court, not to treat the fact of a charge as proof.

The trial follows years in which allegations against Brand received public attention. During jury selection, prospective jurors were asked whether they had encountered a television documentary or newspaper reporting from 2023 concerning allegations against him. Those who had seen that coverage were excluded from serving, Courthouse News Service reported.

That screening is one concrete way the court is addressing the challenge of selecting jurors for a case with prior media coverage. It does not settle any of the charges. It helps determine who can serve before the trial proceeds to the stage where the case itself is heard.

For sexual-offence cases, accountability and due process are not opposing goals. Bringing charges to trial creates a formal process for examining serious allegations; it does not amount to a finding against the defendant. The distinction matters both to the women whose allegations underpin the case and to Brand, who has pleaded not guilty.

Jurors were warned against outside research

A group of 50 prospective jurors was questioned about whether they had seen the 2023 coverage. The court excluded those who had, according to Courthouse News Service. The questions came before the jury was sworn in, as the court worked to select a panel for the trial.

Judge Joel Bennathan also instructed prospective jurors not to investigate the case on their own. “You absolutely must not carry out any research at all about this defendant Russell Brand,” he told them, Courthouse News Service reported.

The instruction sets a clear boundary for jurors: their consideration of the charges is to come through the court process, rather than from material they seek independently. In a case that had already been the subject of a documentary and newspaper coverage, the screening and warning address two sources of information outside the courtroom: prior exposure and later research.

Monday’s proceedings were still at the selection stage. The court had not yet sworn in the jury that would hear the case, so it would be inaccurate to describe the allegations as already presented to jurors. The adjournment gave the selection process another day to continue.

That distinction is more than a technicality. Public attention can make a high-profile case feel settled before trial, but selection is not a verdict and coverage is not evidence considered by a jury. A fair process requires that the charges remain allegations until they are decided through the proceedings.

The next step is a sworn jury

Jury selection was expected to continue Tuesday, with the jury due to be sworn in that day. That would move the case beyond choosing jurors and toward the trial stage in which prosecutors’ allegations and Brand’s denial can be considered in court.

The schedule marks a significant procedural step, not a conclusion about what happened. The seven counts remain unresolved, and Brand remains not guilty of them unless and until a court reaches a different result. The women connected to the charges are not named here.

CBS News reported that the trial could continue for up to 10 weeks. The estimate points to a lengthy proceeding, but the immediate milestone is narrower: the court must complete jury selection before the panel can begin hearing the case.

For the six women, the start of jury selection moves the allegations toward consideration in court without resolving them. For Brand, the not-guilty pleas mean the charges are contested. The process must make room for both realities: allegations serious enough to be tried and a defendant entitled to have them judged through the trial rather than by accusation alone.