In the news

The Brand Case: the perpetuation of myths, and the challenge to the Church

Posted by Bekah Legg on 6 November 2026

I held my breath yesterday as I watched the live reporting on the Russell Brand case, waiting to see if justice would be delivered. As four guilty verdicts were announced, and the judge warned of significant custodial sentences, I can imagine that across the land there was a collective exhale from women who had wondered if, once again, a predator’s wealth, power and manipulations would leave victims feeling unseen, unheard and marginalised. 

The defence had leaned on long-articulated myths to defend Brand. Myths that can stop justice and haunt victims:

“Not one of them resisted or screamed or even tried to leave.”

Apart from the fact that this patently isn’t true, everything we know about trauma responses explains why victims of assault might not ‘fight back’ in the way we expect. Faced with a threat, our body’s autonomic nervous system takes over – the involuntary system that controls our heartbeat and our breath. It chooses, without our conscious brain, to fight, flee, freeze, fawn, or flop. So, faced with a man who is determined to take what he wants from our bodies, we may fight, but we may also freeze, dissociate or even smile and try to keep them happy. All involuntary responses designed to help us survive. None of them means we wanted to be touched, kissed, or to have sex. 

There were “monstrous delays” in the women in the criminal trial coming forward to police. 

Again, not entirely true, but of course there were delays. Within domestic abuse, we know that it takes between 35-50 incidents of abuse and an average of three years for someone to seek help¹. That average obscures the much longer time it takes women to speak out when their abuser is rich, powerful, well-liked or holds a position of authority in a community that won’t want it to be true.  Brand was at the top of his game, and speaking up, whilst traumatised, in a world which cheered him on, would have been terrifying.

“Can you possibly be sure that out ot the many, many women who voluntarily had sex with Mr Brand, he raped just three of them?”

Well, no, I couldn’t, but I don’t think that works in Mr Brand’s favour.  What Ian Winter KC meant to discredit Brand’s victims, I believe, highlights the likelihood that there are many, many more women who were coerced or forced into sex that they did not want with Mr Brand. This line of thinking is grotesque, but we see it all too often. “Any other woman would be grateful to be wanted by this man.” “Everyone else thinks he is charming.” “He is such a funny/clever/compassionate/handsome (delete as appropriate) person; why would anyone say no?” The insinuation is that if someone didn’t want sex with Brand, there must be something wrong with them. 

‘A rapist doesn’t leave his name and email address”

It turns out they do. They do it when they have become so entitled, so sure that any woman is lucky to be with them, that they don’t even recognise what they are doing is a crime. It’s how they build their inner narrative: they are a decent bloke who doesn’t just hit and run, but leaves their name and number.

And then there are the Christian myths.

“Innocent until proven guilty”

This was a term used by some Christian leaders to defend their displaying of Brand as a trophy for the Kingdom. It is a legal term coined to stop kings from meting out punishment to control their land. But the reality is that Brand was guilty the moment he frightened, overpowered and assaulted those women. He was guilty the moment he decided that he would take what he felt entitled to. Not legally, but really. The women he assaulted, (importantly, even those who did not get a legal guilty verdict) have lived with that reality ever since. 

It’s all about grace

“Well, all that is behind him now, because that naughty behaviour was before he met Jesus, and now he is an example of the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, so stop being mean to him” 

That’s not a direct quote, but it’s a pretty accurate summation of what I have seen from various quarters. I am not going to speculate about where Brand stands with God. That’s not my place. But that’s also not the point.

Much of what we teach at Restored is rooted in the first three chapters of the Bible. Chapters that teach us about God’s original intention for humankind, how that got broken and the consequences. After the fall, Adam and Eve realise what they have done and hide, ashamed for the first time in history. God does not withhold his presence; he seeks them out. He asks them what they have done; he covers their nakedness, their shame. This is a God who loves us in our brokenness and sin. But neither does he withhold consequences. Life will be tougher now; there will be enmity, power struggles, and separation from what had been their home. Adam and Eve’s actions have a lasting impact on their future. 

A perpetrator can be introduced to Jesus, welcomed into the church, and shown care and compassion, but they must also acknowledge their actions and live with the consequences. That is the root of the gospel. Zaccheus hosted Jesus in his home, and then gave reparations to those he had defrauded. Brand is welcome in the Kingdom of God, but that doesn’t mean we should make everything about him, and it certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold him accountable for his past. Grace and truth are not mutually exclusive.

1: Statistics from Safe Lives.