Russell Brand is reportedly “furious” with his barrister over the way his defence was handled during the trial that ended with his conviction and imprisonment for rape and sexual assault.
Brand, who was sentenced to 10 years and six months yesterday, is said by legal sources to be considering a new legal team if he is charged with further offences.
The development follows criticism of the courtroom strategy adopted by his counsel, Ian Winter KC, during the trial.
Brand’s apparent decision to sever ties with his barrister comes after he reportedly spent about £1 million on his defence. Mr Winter’s forceful questioning of the women who gave evidence was described by some observers as veering towards “victim blaming”.
During Monday’s sentencing hearing, the judge also appeared unconvinced by several arguments put forward in mitigation by Mr Winter.
At one stage, he told the court that his client “is a fundamentally different person today”, that Brand had been “extraordinarily famous” at the time of the offences and that the final alleged incident occurred “very shortly after he met [pop star] Katy Perry”.
Mr Justice Bennathan interrupted, responding: “To say ‘He got away with it for 17 years’ is not necessarily a huge piece of mitigation, is it?”
Mr Winter also argued that one of Brand’s victims was “not particularly vulnerable” when the television star groped her breasts in a bar.
Ian Winter KC, Russell Brand’s lawyer, leaves Southwark Crown Court on Monday after Brand was sentenced
Brand was questioned by Mr Winter, pictured left, while giving evidence during the trial
Brand was sentenced on Monday to 10 years and six months in prison
He said the woman sexually assaulted by Brand in a Soho bar in 2004 had been “tipsy” rather than “vulnerable”.
The sentencing judge later stressed that women always retain the right to refuse consent and seek justice through the criminal courts when they are targeted by sexual predators.
“Whatever women wear, wherever they go, whatever they drink, they retain the right to say no and demand justice in the criminal courts when predators like you, Mr Brand, act without their consent,” he told the court.
Mr Winter had already attracted widespread criticism after swearing at Sunday Times journalist Ros Urwin outside court following the guilty verdict. Ms Urwin’s 2023 investigation prompted Brand’s alleged victims to come forward. When she told him justice had been done, he replied: “Well it wasn’t, you f****d it. Congratulations.”
Mr Winter subsequently referred himself to the Bar Standards Board after witnesses to the exchange, along with the Sunday Times, lodged complaints.
At an earlier pre-trial hearing, Mr Winter had suggested that reports by the Sunday Times and Channel Four could amount to contempt of court and might have perverted the course of justice. Ms Urwin said the claim made her “laugh, because it was so ludicrous”, pointing out that no legal proceedings were active at the time.
Sian Harrison, an experienced court reporter and co-author of the respected McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, described Brand’s defence as among the worst examples she had witnessed in two decades.
Speaking to Sky News, Ms Harrison said: “I think we’ve seen probably one of the worst examples in recent times… of that kind of questioning of victims and… we don’t know the reasons for the jury’s verdict, but it may be that didn’t sit well with them.
“Certain lines of defence were difficult to understand… it was quite strange to witness what was happening.”
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley also criticised Mr Winter’s suggestion to jurors that none of the victims had “resisted, screamed or even tried to leave”.
Sir Mark told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think what I’ve heard reported heads towards, it’s getting very close to victim blaming, which is something we’ve thought very hard about in policing and make sure we don’t do.”
CONTINUE READING: Trump Brings UFC CEO Dana White to Wild White House Press Conference
He said he would back a proposal from the Victims’ Commissioner to introduce a legal requirement for judges to warn juries about rape myths and misconceptions in every rape trial.
Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Mark Rowley criticised Mr Winter, pictured, for telling jurors that none of the victims had “resisted, screamed or even tried to leave”
Ian Winter KC cross-examines one of Brand’s victims during the trial
“It shouldn’t be possible for inaccurate statements to be made to a jury to suggest that because a rape victim didn’t behave in one way that somehow undermines their case,” he added.
Legal sources believe Brand could face additional criminal charges after being convicted at his first trial.
Prosecutors may view a further case as easier to pursue following the jury’s verdicts.
Brand is also likely to face civil claims. In recent months, as the Mail reported, he appears to have moved money and assets in an effort to place them beyond the reach of potential successful claimants.
It is understood that, a month before the trial began, he applied to transfer ownership of his £5 million thatched cottage in Oxfordshire to his wife, Laura Gallacher, 39.
Last year, Brand transferred £8.7 million out of his television and stand-up company before facing trial for rape and sexual assault.
A nearby 500-year-old pub, the Crown Inn at Pishill, which Brand bought for £850,000 in 2020, was sold in October 2025 for £975,000.
South Oxfordshire District Council rejected plans to convert the former pub into a private recording studio and office after strong opposition from residents and the Campaign for Real Ale.
The property was held through Brand’s company, Pablo Diablo’s Legitimate Business Firm Limited. Unlike the family home, it had been jointly owned by Laura since the couple married.
Before the pub was sold, Brand and Laura moved their registered address from Britain to the United States, where they established a home with their three children in Florida.
Earlier this year, Brand quietly disclosed plans to close Pablo Diablo’s Legitimate Business Firm Limited, the company that managed income from his television, Hollywood and online careers.
The value of the company’s assets fell from £15.3 million to £3.96 million—more than an £11 million decline—in the year to the end of 2025.
Laura Gallacher, left, the wife of British comedian and actor Russell Brand, arrives at Southwark Crown Court in south London on November 9, 2026
The company handled income from Brand’s work on platforms including Rumble, as well as live shows and merchandise. His YouTube channel was permanently “demonetized” after sexual abuse allegations emerged in 2023, preventing him from earning money through the platform.
The planned closure, which began at the start of the year, was viewed as an indication that Brand was preparing for the financial consequences of the trial.
He is also facing a civil claim in the United States linked to the production of the 2010 film Arthur. The complainant is seeking unspecified damages from the actor and comedian.
At the beginning of the year, the company held about £3 million in reserves, compared with £12 million at the same point a year earlier.
How did Russell Brand become a predator? What comes next? Get exclusive insight from The Crime Desk as we talk to police, psychologists, lawyers and more. Sign-up by clicking here.
