The conviction of Russell Brand has sent shockwaves through the country, reopening painful questions about how the justice system treats survivors of sexual violence. Brand, once a beloved comedian, actor, and podcaster, was found guilty on Thursday of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault, while being acquitted of two further rape charges and one count of attempted indecent assault. The trial lasted four weeks and exposed not only the details of his crimes but also the ways in which courtroom culture can still undermine victims. For many, the most distressing moment came when his defence lawyer, Ian Winter KC, told the court that none of the complainants had “resisted or screamed or even tried to leave.” That single sentence, repeated in headlines and discussed on radio, seemed to encapsulate a stubborn and harmful misunderstanding of how people respond to sexual violence. It suggested, to some ears, that a “real” victim must fight back, must cry out, must flee. But survivors know differently, and so do experts. The reaction from political leaders has been swift, with Andy Burnham and the Prime Minister both speaking about the need for change. Their words offer a glimmer of hope that this case, as painful as it is, might become a turning point in the fight for justice. The fact that these conversations are happening at the highest levels of power is significant. It means that the courage of the women who testified, who sat in a courtroom and relived their trauma, has not been in vain. Their voices are being heard, not just by the jury, but by the people who make the laws. For too long, survivors have watched from the sidelines as powerful men walked free. This time, something feels different. The public outrage, the political attention, and the willingness to question the system itself suggest that a corner may have been turned.
Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, was among the first to respond. He said he would study Brand’s case in “great detail” and pledged to look at how rape cases are conducted in court to “make sure they do not leave the woman feeling like she is on trial.” In an interview with Times Radio, Burnham spoke with evident frustration about the experiences of victims who have historically been treated with suspicion rather than support. “I think we need to constantly look at the way rape trials are conducted to make sure that they do not leave the woman feeling like she is on trial in court, as has been the experience of people in the past,” he said. He did not rule out changes to the law to tackle violence against women and girls, and he made clear that the current system is not good enough. “We need to encourage more women to come forward to report rape. We need to get the conviction rate up. It has improved, but not enough. We need to do more to support victims of sexual assault and rape, and we will do that as well.” His words were accompanied by genuine praise for the women at the centre of the Brand case. “I would like to praise the bravery of the victims in the case, who’ve come forward and had the courage to speak out,” he said. This is more than political rhetoric. It is an acknowledgment that the legal system has too often failed women, and that the burden of proof has sometimes felt like a burden of performance. Burnham’s willingness to listen, to learn, and to consider legislative change is exactly the kind of response that survivors have been demanding for years. It is a recognition that justice is not just about verdicts, but about the way victims are treated from the moment they report a crime to the moment a trial ends. The fact that a senior political figure is willing to say that women have been made to feel like they are on trial is itself a powerful validation of their experiences. It tells survivors that they are not imagining things, that the system has been stacked against them, and that there are people in power who want to change it.
The call for change has been amplified by some of the most senior figures in British policing and victim advocacy. Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said he strongly supported the Victims Commissioner, Claire Waxman, who has called for a legal duty requiring judges to direct juries on “rape myths” in every rape trial. Waxman criticised “outdated and harmful assumptions” that victims must have screamed, physically resisted, or immediately reported an offence. “The idea that rape victims must scream, physically resist or immediately report an offence is a well-established rape myth, rooted in outdated and harmful assumptions about how victims are expected to behave,” she said. She wants the law to state plainly that judges must guide juries on these misconceptions, so that justice is “grounded in evidence, not misconceptions.” Sir Mark went further, saying that some of what he heard reported during Brand’s trial came “very close to victim blaming.” He explained that people often fall into myths about how a rape victim must behave, but the evidence is clear: “Some people will fight. Some people will freeze. Some people will tell people straight away. Some people bottle it up for years. There isn’t one way of reacting.” His words are a powerful corrective to the defence lawyer’s suggestion that the complainants’ lack of visible resistance somehow undermined their credibility. The trauma response is complex. The brain can shut down, the body can go numb, and memory can fragment. To expect a uniform reaction is not only scientifically wrong; it is deeply unjust. If juries are not educated about these realities, they may judge victims against an impossible standard. Waxman’s proposal, if adopted, would ensure that every jury hears a clear, consistent explanation of how trauma affects behaviour before they deliberate. That would be a significant step toward a fairer system, one that no longer treats survivors as suspects. It would also send a message to society at large: that freezing is not consent, that silence is not agreement, and that the absence of bruises does not mean the absence of a crime.
The Prime Minister has also weighed in, saying he would consider “closely” the comments from Sir Mark Rowley about the need for new laws to tackle rape myths. He said he would not rule out changes to the law to address violence against women and girls. But his response has been complicated by revelations about his own past. In 2014, when The Sun exposed the fact that Brand was paying rent on his London home to a firm registered in the British Virgin Islands, the then-opposition frontbencher defended Brand on social media. “Depressing to see media mission to discredit someone who stops playing their game & uses celebrity to help others. Keep going @rustyrockets,” he wrote at the time. Now, after Brand’s conviction, the Prime Minister has acknowledged the gravity of the situation. “His crimes are horrific. He’s rightly been held to account, justice for the victims and that is the right course that’s been taken here,” he told the BBC. He added that it is “not always the case that people know everything about people in public life, but what is important is that where there is wrongdoing, it is exposed.” This is a delicate moment. The Prime Minister is being asked to confront not only the systemic failures that allowed Brand to evade accountability for so long, but also his own past willingness to give Brand the benefit of the doubt. It is a reminder that public figures, like all of us, can be fooled by charm and celebrity. The important thing, as he said, is that wrongdoing is exposed and that victims are believed. His willingness to consider legal reform is a positive sign, but it must be followed by action. Survivors do not need more promises; they need change. They need to see that the lessons of this case have been learned, that the myths have been dismantled, and that the next woman who walks into a courtroom will not be met with suspicion but with support. The Prime Minister’s words, and his promise to look closely at the need for new laws, are a start. But the real test will be in the legislation that follows, and in the culture of the courtroom itself.
The Brand case is part of a much larger crisis. In November 2024, Metro launched “This Is Not Right,” a campaign in partnership with Women’s Aid to address the relentless epidemic of violence against women. The campaign aims to shine a light on the sheer scale of this national emergency, and to give survivors a platform to share their stories. The response to Brand’s conviction shows why such a campaign is necessary. Two further allegations against Brand are still being investigated, and Sir Mark Rowley has said he “wouldn’t be surprised if many, many more come forward.” This suggests that the scale of his alleged offending may be far greater than what was heard in court. It also suggests that many survivors may have been waiting for a moment like this, a moment when the system finally took them seriously. The courage of the women who testified in Brand’s trial cannot be overstated. They walked into a courtroom knowing they would be cross-examined, their memories probed, their characters questioned. They did it so that other women might see that it is possible to speak out. But the fight is not over. The conviction rate for rape remains shamefully low. Too many victims still fear that they will not be believed, that their past will be used against them, that their trauma will be dissected in public. The political and legal responses to this case, from Burnham, the Prime Minister, Sir Mark Rowley and Claire Waxman, are welcome. But they must be translated into concrete action: changes to the law, better training for judges and barristers, more support for survivors, and a fundamental shift in the way society understands sexual violence. The campaign’s name, “This Is Not Right,” captures the anger and frustration that so many feel. It is a simple statement, but it is also a demand. It says that violence against women is not inevitable, that it is not acceptable, and that it must be stopped.
Ultimately, the Russell Brand case is a story about accountability, but it is also a story about the resilience of survivors. For years, Brand was a powerful, charismatic figure who used his platform to campaign on social issues while, according to the jury, committing terrible acts behind closed doors. The women who accused him were not believed at first, or they were too afraid to come forward. Their decision to testify, to endure a gruelling trial, and to watch their abuser finally be convicted is a testament to their strength. But it should not have taken this long, and it should not have been so hard. The system failed them, and it fails countless others. The proposals now on the table, from judicial directions on rape myths to a broader review of how trials are conducted, offer a path forward. They are not radical or unreasonable. They are simply about ensuring that justice is based on evidence and understanding, not on outdated stereotypes. As Andy Burnham said, no woman should feel like she is on trial when she has come to court to seek justice. That is the least we owe them. This moment must not be allowed to pass without change. The public outrage, the political promises, and the brave testimony of survivors must lead to a legal system that treats every victim with dignity, and a society that refuses to look away. Only then can we truly say that this is not right, and that we are doing something about it. The women who spoke out against Russell Brand have changed the conversation. It is now up to the rest of us, and to the people in power, to make sure that their courage was not wasted. They have done their part. The rest of us must do ours.
