Russell Brand’s lawyer explodes at journalist with furious ‘you f****d it’ outburst after guilty verdict

Russell Brand’s barrister launched an extraordinary foul-mouthed attack on a journalist outside the courtroom after the disgraced comedian was found guilty of rape and sexual assault.Ian Winter KC turned on Sunday Times journalist Rosamund Urwin, whose investigation helped bring Brand’s victims forward, confronting her with the extraordinary words: “I hope you are pleased with yourself.”But Ms Urwin refused to back down, firing back: “I’m pleased justice has been done.”Winter then snapped: “Well, it wasn’t. You f***** it.”“Congratulations,” he added.The astonishing exchange came after Brand’s legal team sought to blame media coverage for the case against him, with Winter arguing during the trial that reporting by Ms Urwin and others had “poisoned the well” and made it impossible for his client to receive a fair trial.But the attempt to derail proceedings was rejected by trial judge Mr Justice Bennathan, who dismissed Brand’s bid to prevent the trial from going ahead because of negative media coverage.And it can now be revealed that Brand attempted to smear journalists as “criminals” while claiming women who accused him of abuse were “fictional” in a desperate bid to avoid facing trial.Russell Brand has been told to expect a lengthy sentence after being found guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault PAA number of women came forward to police after the media reports, accusing Brand of rape, sexual assault, coercive behaviour and emotional abuse. Prior to his trial, Brand tried to persuade a judge that he had been on the receiving end of a character assassination and therefore could not have a fair trial. The stand-up comedian and TV and radio host claimed he had suffered more prejudice than the likes of serial killer Rose West. Mr Winter asked Mr Justice Bennathan to throw out rape and sexual assault charges.But the attack on award-winning journalists failed when the judge ruled that the jury could be made up of people who had not seen the 2023 media reporting.Read MoreIn a legal argument that can now be reported for the first time, Brand tried to claim that TV and newspaper journalists had deliberately plotted to get him prosecuted and, by publishing the findings of their investigation, had perverted the course of justice.A prisoner transport van leaves Southwark Crown Court shortly after Russell Brand was found guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault Getty“The conduct of Channel 4, Hardcash Productions – the makers of the documentary – and the Sunday Times newspaper in publishing the anonymous allegations against the defendant was, and remains, unlawful and criminal,” said Mr Winter.“It amounted to, and continues to do so, a contempt of court and to a perversion of the course of justice.”During two days of pre-trial hearings in September, Mr Winter called the Dispatches documentary, Russell Brand: In Plain Sight, a “work of fiction” filled with “false allegations”, highlighting that the anonymised women who had given their stories had been depicted on screen by actors.The allegations in the documentary included rape, sexual harassment on the set of Big Brother, sexually charged comments while working for the BBC, and details of his lewd behaviour in the Noughties, including telling audiences at his stand-up shows “all sex should be a bit frightening”.Mr Winter said televised claims against Brand had been made by the “tear-stained cheeks of professional actors”, instead of the women who were accusing him.He told the court: “We don’t even know if these people exist.”Rounding on the reporters, Mr Winter said: “It is not the job of journalists to take the law into their own hands.”Russell Brand, with his wife Laura Gallacher, arriving at Southwark Crown Court on ThursdayPAThe documentary, which included details of Brand’s Sachsgate scandal, evidence from his personal assistant about his behaviour towards women, and revelations about his sex addiction, “drives the observer to the conclusion” that Brand “is a rapist and a sexual assaulter and a serial abuser of women”, said the barrister.“It is thus much worse than merely being accused of having committed a specified crime, it proves the defendant to be a person who commits those crimes all the time and has done so for very, very many years.“What possible prospect is there of a juror thinking that when an established multiple rapist gives evidence, that he did not commit a particular identified rape that he is telling the truth?”He added: “It destroys him as a person. It destroys him as a credible witness. It destroys any hint of sympathy that a jury might otherwise have had for him.”Mr Winter said the documentary was still online and available to download in the weeks before the trial, and suggested the Attorney General should have intervened to get it taken down.He said: “We simply don’t understand how that is being allowed by the authorities.A police interview of Russell Brand in November 2023PA Media“It is a crime currently being committed by these publishers.”The court was told that Brand had struggled to persuade friends and former colleagues to give evidence for him, because of a “global character assassination by the media”.Prosecutors fought against the charges being thrown out, and the judge rejected the arguments of Brand’s lawyers, saying it was “unpersuasive” to claim that journalists had committed a crime.He ruled: “There is a history, both modern and ancient, of the media running what they claim are exposes of misconduct.”He highlighted media coverage of alleged unlawful donations to Reform UK this year, as well as allegations in Private Eye magazine in the 1960s about the Kray twins, and said: “Sometimes those claimed revelations lead to convictions, sometimes they do not. It has never been suggested that that type of publication is unlawful.”The judge concluded the jury could be selected from members of the public who had not read the Times and Sunday Times reporting or seen the Dispatches programme.He also suggested Brand’s complaints about the public being turned against him had been exaggerated, pointing to a 2,000-strong audience cheering Brand on stage after the allegations were first made.He said: “The British public are not all meek and passive consumers of all that is claimed in the press.”During the trial, Mr Winter attacked reporters again during his closing speech when he accused them of “poisoning the well” of evidence in the case.Brand, who is facing years behind bars after being found guilty of one rape and three sexual assaults, argued during his trial that his accusers had “reimagined” sexual encounters with him.Asked in front of the jury by prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC whether he blamed the media for his downfall, Brand appeared stunned into silence before eventually replying: “In some ways.”In a statement following the verdict in the Russell Brand case, a spokesman for the The Times and The Sunday Times said: “Today’s verdict is a testament to the courage of the women who came forward and informed The Times’ and The Sunday Times’ investigative reporting.“The joint investigation with Channel 4’s Dispatches was made in commitment to responsible, public interest journalism holding power and institutions to account.“Many women who bravely took part in this investigation did not have their cases brought before a court.“Their contributions were vital in bringing these issues to light, and our commitment remains with everyone who found the courage to share their experiences.”