Today, Thursday 5 November 2026, the conviction of Russell Brand for rape and sexual assault marks a significant moment in a case that has attracted considerable public attention for years and raised important questions about sexual violence, the abuse of power, as well as the barriers survivors face when seeking justice.

Following a four-week trial at Southwark Crown Court in London, a jury found Brand guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault involving four women. He had faced seven charges relating to allegations made by six women, spanning a period from 1999 onwards.

Brand, who denied all of the allegations, was told by Mr Justice Bennathan that he faced an ‘inevitable significant custodial term’ and was remanded in custody pending sentencing on Monday 9 November 2026.

This verdict represents a long-awaited important outcome for the survivors who courageously came forward and endured the considerable demands of the criminal proceedings that followed.

For survivors of sexual abuse this case is a reminder that there are legal routes available to seek justice and accountability.

The importance of survivors being heard

One of the most significant aspects of the case has been the experiences of the women who came forward.

The allegations concerned incidents over a number of years, during which Brand's celebrity status and influence were alleged to have played a role in his treatment of women.

During the trial, the prosecution described a pattern of behaviour involving charm, flattery and attention, followed by a change in behaviour whereby he was described to have a change in the look of his eye and change from charming to frightening and nasty. The defence disputed the allegations and maintained that the sexual encounters were consensual, arguing that being “rude or acting like a crazy idiot” during sex is not a crime, alleging consent. Further concerningly, Brand’s defence put forward the question as to why none of the survivors had “screamed, kicked out or slapped” Brand when they were raped, adding further, “Not one of them resisted or screamed or even tried to leave,”. Not only is this line of argument deeply troubling, it also reflects a damaging misconception about sexual violence and the way in which survivors respond to it.

We know through our experience working with survivors of sexual assault that there is no prescribed way to react when someone is sexually assaulted. The expectation that a victim will inevitably scream, physically fight back, attempt to escape or immediately report what has happened is simply not supported by our understanding of trauma.

People respond to threatening and traumatic situations in different ways. While some may fight or flee, others may freeze, become physically unable to respond, comply with what is happening as a means of self-preservation, or experience a form of dissociation. These are recognised trauma responses and crucially they are not signs of consent.

Arguments which focus on what a survivor did or did not do during a sexual assault risk promoting harmful rape myths, disturbingly placing responsibility on the victim, rather than examining the conduct of the alleged perpetrator, is deeply concerning to hear being discussed in the High Courts of England and Wales in 2026.

More positively, the Metropolitan Police have praised the complainants for their courage, resilience and determination in coming forward, particularly given the intense public scrutiny surrounding the proceedings, although it should be recognised that coming forward in any circumstance involving sexual assault is never easy.

Sexual abuse and abuse of power

The Brand case also highlights the potential relationship between the abuse of power.

Abuse does not always occur in circumstances where a perpetrator uses physical force or where a victim is able to immediately challenge what is happening. It can occur in professional environments, workplaces, entertainment settings, institutions and any other kind of situation where one person holds considerably more power or influence than another.

Criminal convictions are not the only route to justice

An important point that is sometimes overlooked is that criminal proceedings are not the only way in which survivors of sexual abuse can pursue justice.

Depending on the circumstances, a civil claim may be brought against the individual responsible for the abuse, and/or against the organisation, employer or institution if they can be held legally responsible for the perpetrator, including where the law recognises vicarious liability.

Although a criminal conviction is helpful when brining a civil claim, the absence of a conviction does not necessarily prevent someone from pursuing a civil remedy. The applicable legal tests and evidential requirements are different, and this is something that needs to be considered on a case by case basis and will turn on its own facts.

Seeking advice

Our specialist abuse claims team at Switalskis has considerable experience in supporting and advising survivors of abuse in every type of sexual abuse circumstance.

We understand how difficult it can be to take the first step and speak about what happened. You do not need to have reported the abuse to the police to seek legal advice, and we will approach any enquiry with sensitivity and understanding.

If you would like to discuss your circumstances and understand whether you may have a claim, please contact Hannah Hodgson at hannah.hodgson@switalskis.com  or Danielle Vincent at danielle.vincent@switalskis.com for a free, non-obligatory and confidential chat.