Journalists "poisoned the well of justice" by prompting complainants to come forward with criminal allegations against Russell Brand, jurors have been told.

In his closing speech at Southwark Crown Court, defense barrister Ian Winter KC argued that a Channel 4 documentary and reports in The Times and Sunday Times, published in 2023, encouraged individuals to bring allegations against the comedian, many years after the alleged events.

Brand faces seven charges, including three counts of rape, three of sexual assault, and one of attempted indecent assault. He denies all allegations. Mr. Winter told the jury that a "highly promiscuous life is entirely lawful" and questioned the certainty of convictions. He suggested Brand genuinely believed his sexual encounters were consensual, stating this was the only explanation for his behavior being "normal."

Mr. Winter characterized Brand as not being a "psychopath" who rapes people. He pointed to details such as Brand leaving an email address, photographs, and kissing a complainant goodbye as evidence against the rape allegations. He argued that "rapists do not give out their email address."

The defense barrister referred to the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary, reminding the jury that the judge had previously directed them that the program was "very one-sided and produced in a dramatic manner." Mr. Winter stated the documentary was published without journalists speaking to Brand beforehand, primarily to mitigate defamation risks and ensure a right of reply after its release.

"Most importantly, that programme and those allegations in it - Mr Brand is innocent of them. So, they poisoned the well in respect of things of which Mr Brand is innocent," Mr. Winter told the court. He also claimed the six complainants were "thoroughly contaminated by the programme."

The court heard about the impact the documentary had on Brand, with Mr. Winter recounting an instance where a hospital allegedly denied Brand access to his son's bedside following life-saving surgery. "That tells you the extent to which public opinion has... corrupted," Mr. Winter stated, referencing Brand's earlier testimony.

Brand has previously told the jury that Great Ormond Street Hospital would not permit him to stay with his then-infant son. The defense's argument centers on the idea that media coverage significantly influenced public perception and potentially the complainants' willingness to come forward, thereby prejudicing Brand's right to a fair trial.