Russell Brand tells trial sexual consent is 'fundamental'The entertainer gives evidence at his trial on charges including rape and assault, which he denies.7 hrs agoCulture

• Warning – this report contains graphic content

Russell Brand has told the jury at his trial he believes sexual consent is “fundamental” and “more important than sex itself”.

Brand, 51, is accused of three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault, and one charge of attempted indecent assault.

The allegations, made by six female complainants, span a 10-year period between 1999 and 2009. He denies all the charges.

The media personality gave evidence as his defence case began at his trial at Southwark Crown Court in London.

Asked whether consent was important to him, he told the court: “Consent is fundamental, essential, necessary and indeed in many ways more important than sex itself.”

Brand told the court he had previously been “comfortable” allowing his fame to “facilitate sexual access, which I agree with you was wrong”.

But asked by the prosecution whether he “needed and was prepared to go to any lengths”, Brand replied: “Absolutely no.”

Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC suggested to Brand there were inconsistencies between his previous prepared police statement and what he told the jury.

“Ms Karmy-Jones, I completely agree,” he replied. “Since these events occurred there’s been escalating recollection.

“It’s been a deeply traumatic episode of my life. I’ve focused on it at the expense of my marriage, my children and health.

“I recognise that this recollection includes small details that are inconsistent and I acknowledge that.”

He said: “I do recognise I have been a very determined and focused man.

“With women, of course, which is the subject of my trial, I’ve been persuasive, seductive, begging and flirting, and dedicated a lot of my life to what seems now beyond reckless philandering, and idiocy.”

He told the jury: “Regrettably I’ve had a lot of consensual sex, which I see has caused harm.”

After Brand entered the witness box on Wednesday morning, defence barrister Ian Winter KC began by taking him through the indictment, asking him if he had committed the offences.

After each question, Brand replied “no” loudly towards the jury.

Brand was then asked about the Channel 4 documentary and the impact it had on his relationships with friends and colleagues. “It was devastating,” Brand said.

Winter questioned whether Brand had been able to persuade any friend or acquaintance who might have been able to give evidence on his behalf to appear in court.

Brand replied: “I have not.” Winter asked: “Will they touch you with a bargepole?” Brand said: “No.”

Brand also claimed in court that he was told he could not stay with his son at Great Ormond Street hospital in London when the child was having open heart surgery, following the documentary and a newspaper investigation.

He told the court: “Due to material that had been published in the public eye they had to bar my attendance and presence.”

Brand told the court: “My entire life has been consumed by these allegations,” adding that he had “devoted myself to these matters”.

Winter asked Brand if he recalled meeting the first complainant, who alleges he raped her at the Labour Party conference in Bournemouth in 1999.

Brand said yes, explaining that he found her “loquacious” and “interesting”.

When asked if there was any truth in the allegations that he raped her, he said: “No.”

Under cross examination, the prosecution suggested Brand “just didn’t care whether she was interested in having sex with you or not”. Brand rejected that, saying he did care “very much”.

Asked whether he was sure he “didn’t think no means yes”, he replied: “I know what no means.”

Brand was then asked about another woman, who alleges that the entertainer grabbed her breasts before dragging her into a toilet and raping her.

Brand said he recalled been invited to a party in London at a bar in 2004, and said a friend had introduced him to the complainant by saying “something like ‘there’s a bird here who really wants to meet you mate’.”

When asked if he remembered what he said to her upon meeting, he told the court: “I would have said something like, ‘You’re really, really beautiful’.”

The barrister asked whether he had grabbed her breasts. “Absolutely not,” Brand replied.

When questioned if he would have behaved in the way that had been alleged, he said it would have amounted to “disgusting behaviour”.

“I was increasingly focused on my promiscuity,” he said. “That’s not the way I would have behaved because it’s not only criminal but vulgar.”

Brand said he remembered going into the toilet with her but said “no” when asked if he had dragged or forced her there.

“Did your penis enter her mouth at all whilst in the cubicle?” Winter asked. “No,” said Brand.

Another complainant, who worked at MTV, alleges that Brand tried to drag her into a toilet at work in 2001.

At the time, he was one of the channel’s star presenters. She said she managed to wrench herself away.

Asked if he had intended a non-consensual sexual encounter, Brand told the court: “Absolutely not.”

In relation to another woman, who accuses Brand of anal rape, he said he remembered her being in his dressing room at the Hammersmith Apollo theatre in London in 2009 after his comedy show.

He said after a “memorable” sexual encounter, he contacted her again to try to meet, adding: “I was excited and enthusiastic about it.”

Brand also said he had saved her number in his phone using a code, saying: “That was what I used to denote casual hook-ups and women I met I could hook up with.”

After inviting her to his house in Hampstead, he said they had consensual sex in his room.

When asked if he committed anal rape, he said no. When asked if she had asked him to stop, he said no.

Asked by the prosecution later if his memory was “a little selective” in what he could remember, Brand replied: “No.”

Brand was also asked on Wednesday about his wedding to singer Katy Perry in October 2010 and whether it brought a “sea change” to his life. He said the marriage brought him “staggering fame”.

Being cross examined, Brand agreed with the prosecution’s suggestion that he blamed Channel 4 documentary programme Dispatches for the allegations.

Asked if the media had been fair to him, Brand said he “would reject that suggestion strongly”.

Under intense questioning from Karmy-Jones, Brand denied pretending to be gay in his pursuit of women, after one of the complainants said they assumed he was gay and that she had felt “sexually safe with him”.

Brand also told the jury he had an obsession with sex as a younger man but denied giving himself a “goal” to sleep with 5,000 women.

From the witness box, he said consent was “non-negotiable”.

The trial continues.