Russell Brand has just been sentenced to 10 years and 6 months in prison.
I briefly consider the above question, broken down below.
Would Russell Brand have been prosecuted if he had not become right wing?
It is noteworthy that the label ‘conspiracy theorist’ is now being tagged onto ‘convicted rapist’. This appears to be an attempt to subliminally create a connection between the two, when any sensible, conscious thought process, would plainly reveal no logical connection.
Further, all kinds of wholly unrelated stories are being published and re-published with the aim of portraying Brand as a wholly malevolent character.
There is no way of answering the above question definitively, but there does not seem to be any apolitical catalyst for the Dispatches programme in 2023; apparently the Times had sat on the allegations since 2019.
The Dispatches programme seemed to anticipate the above question and suggested that Brand’s political conversion may have been contrived and cynical, i.e. he knew the allegations would be made public and sought to create a loyal fan base who would treat them with scepticism.
I only have a cursory experience of Brand’s political content (which I only regard as moderately right wing), but I do recall a relatively gradual change, with him expressing a tepid sympathy for nationalism in around 2016.
Even if the answer to the question is no, this does not mean Brand is innocent; whilst the complainants did not go to the Police at the relevant time, they had apparently told others about the offences shortly after they occurred. This was used as a counter argument to the Defence’s claim that the Dispatches programme had ‘poisoned the well of justice’.
However, if the answer is no, this is still evidence of two-tier justice.
Is the conviction itself evidence of two-tier justice?
This question is linked to but not synonymous with, Brand’s innocence. On this subject, I cannot claim to know the truth. I have an instinctive belief that he is innocent and the verdict was wrong.
However, I do not claim that this is any more than an instinctive belief. Whether he is guilty or innocent, is separate to the question of whether the jury were right to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
I did not have access to the same evidence that the jury did in order to express an opinion on this question. They will have directed to consider only the evidence presented to the Court and to disregard media reporting. There is no way of knowing whether they followed this direction or what their reasons were, as these are not published. It is noteworthy, that Brand was acquitted of some charges.
It has been suggested that the delay in reporting and lack of forensic evidence, should have resulted in an acquittal. This is not correct as a matter of law, and I do not believe it should be, i.e. there should not be a priori rules requiring reporting within a particular time or specific types of evidence.
Nonetheless, I would be hesitant to find that the high burden of proof was satisfied in these circumstances, but I repeat the important caveat above, namely that I did not have access to the evidence that the jury did.
Is the sentence evidence of two-tier justice?
For the reasons given in the article referred to below, it is problematic to rely on superficial sentencing comparisons.
However, the following case, where the Defendant received a non-custodial sentence for three sexual assaults, does jump out at me: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cj3zxxv6jelo - the facts are very different, in that the Defendant assaulted women he had never met before while cycling past them.
The judge in this case did have regard to the sentencing guidelines.
Conclusion
I wrote about the general subject of two-tier justice HERE.
For the reasons set out in the article, I have sympathy with the claim and would argue that the justice system is politically biased in some instances. Nonetheless, I cannot assert with confidence that in this or any other case, a Defendant has received a harsher sentence as a direct result of their political views, save in ‘hate speech’ cases as set out in my earlier article.
With regards to rape, sexual promiscuity and a lack of discernment make actual rape and false allegations thereof, more likely. I am obviously not suggesting that these consequences are morally deserved, although for personal and religious reasons I oppose sexual promiscuity.
