Russell Brand is currently the subject of a police investigation regarding rape allegations made by two additional women, it can now be reported. This development follows a three-week trial at Southwark Crown Court, where a jury of eight men and four women found the 51-year-old former entertainer guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault. Brand was found not guilty of two counts of rape and one count of attempted indecent assault.
Detective Superintendent Andy Furphy, who led the Metropolitan Police investigation, stated that he believes more victims are likely to come forward following the conviction. He expressed hope that other women would gain the "courage" and "confidence" to report their experiences after seeing the guilty verdicts delivered in court. Det Supt Furphy noted that while Brand was initially quiet and coy during police interviews, he became increasingly "emboldened" as officers continued their questioning. "As he gets used to something, he becomes more emboldened by it," Furphy said. "You can certainly see that in his offending."
The investigation into Brand, who was once one of the UK's most high-profile entertainers, began in September 2023 after media reports from The Times, The Sunday Times, and Channel 4's Dispatches programme alleged that four women had accused him of rape, sexual assault, and emotional abuse. Brand strongly denied these claims at the time. Following these reports, the Metropolitan Police established a dedicated team under the name Operation Actinolite to investigate further reports. Officers have since taken more than 340 witness statements, including from Brand's former employers, ex-colleagues, and associates. Notably, US singer Katy Perry, who was married to Brand from 2010 to 2012, was not interviewed by police as part of the investigation.
Officers described the investigation as challenging, particularly due to the high profile of the suspect and the intense media scrutiny surrounding him. A significant complexity for the team was that the allegations were "non-recent," with the earliest dating back 27 years. This meant there was no CCTV or forensic evidence available to support the cases. Instead, police had to build their case by examining where the victims were at the time, who they spoke to in the aftermath, and reviewing other available material to lend weight to the claims. "Just because it's non-recent doesn't mean that we can't solve it at all," Furphy explained.
During the trial, the court heard testimony from various witnesses, including a former friend of Brand and his former personal assistant, who spoke to the jury about the entertainer's "insane sexual appetite." Brand was described in court as a "sexual predator" and "ruthless." Some of the women who testified stated they had been left "haunted for years" by his actions. The women gave their evidence from behind a screen while Brand listened from the dock, and at times, they were visibly emotional.
Brand was interviewed under caution on four separate occasions between 2023 and 2025. In each instance, he provided a prepared statement claiming he did not recognize the complainants or recall the alleged incidents, asserting that any sexual activity would have been consensual. He then answered "no comment" to further questions. Charges were first brought against him in early April 2025, including one count of rape, one count of oral rape, two charges of sexual assault, and one allegation of indecent assault, which was later changed to attempted indecent assault. In July 2025, he was interviewed again and charged with further offences, including one count of rape and one count of sexual assault, both of which he denied.
On 14 October 2026, Brand arrived at Southwark Crown Court accompanied by his wife, Laura, to begin his trial. Det Supt Furphy credited the women for their bravery during what he described as a "deeply uncomfortable" process. "They are courageous, determined women and our focus has always been on them, not Russell Brand," he said.
Another complexity for the team was the allegations were all "non-recent". The earliest dated back 27 years. It meant there was no CCTV and no forensic evidence to work with.
The following month he appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court, in London. He was swarmed by camera crews, so much so that it took him more than two minutes to walk the short distance to the court door. At a later court hearing he pleaded not guilty to the charges.
