Russell Brand’s Ex Accuses Him of ‘Violence, Coercive Control, and Abuse’ After His Sexual Assault Conviction Sentencing

Just after Russell Brand was sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for rape and sexual assault, his ex, screenwriter Jemina Goldsmith, has come forward, accusing him of abuse.

Goldsmith, who dated Brand between 2013 and 2014, took to X with a lengthy statement about her time with the disgraced actor/comedian.

She started the post by stating she was going to share details about her relationship with Brand because she had “no choice” other than to do so due to misleading reports and speculation over a harassment injunction that was filed to protect herself and her family.

“Firstly, and most importantly, I am and have always been strongly and unequivocally on the side of all of Brand’s victims,” Goldsmith stated. “I am in awe of the courageous women who came forward at Brand’s trial, told their stories, testified and ensured justice was done.”

She then opened up about her year-long relationship with Brand.

“I have had my own personal experience of his violence, coercive control, and abuse,” the screenwriter wrote. “I had to call the police to have him removed from my house in 2014 during a violent incident. I chose not to press charges at the time and not to go public with this, as I was worried about the impact of the press attention on my then teenage children.”

Goldsmith confirmed she hasn’t seen or spoken to her ex since the 2014 incident. She pointed out that the relationship occurred during a “difficult period” of her life and it has left a lasting impact on her.

“Over several years, I assisted the journalists who finally exposed him; Ros Urwin, Louisa Compton and Dorothy Byrne,” she continued. “I also undertook to testify in court to his abusiveness, if the newspaper that published the victims’ accounts were ever to be sued.”

Goldsmith further stated that she spent much of her professional career trying to support “unfairly demonized” and silenced women, such as Monica Lewinsky. She is also focused on defending free speech.

Goldsmith then stated the relationship has led to other complications in her life, including a harassment incident.

“In 2014, a harassment injunction was taken out against a woman called Szilvia Berki which was made final in 2015,” she explained. “I fully understand the good intentions of those now advocating on her behalf online and agree with their demand for this harassment injunction to be varied, as my lawyer made clear to Berki’s lawyer in December last year.”

However, Goldsmith said the commentary and media reporting over the past week have presented an “untrue narrative,” leading to her being subjected to “vile hatred and abuse” online.

“For this reason, and to correct the record, I am providing the factual background to that injunction to explain why The High Court found the campaign of harassment by Berki against me to be, ‘oppressive and unacceptable’ and made the order permanent,” she shared.

Goldsmith went on to recall booking Berki to give Brand a massage. However, when Berki arrived at the residence, Brand canceled the service and told her to leave.

“She was clearly offended. I was present the whole time he was with her, and I did not see anything untoward, despite the fact that he was later found guilty of sexually assaulting other women and he later physically assaulted me,” Goldsmith noted. “If I saw any man abuse any woman under any circumstances, I would do my utmost to stop them, without hesitation.”

The screenwriter then explained that Berki reported to the police that Brand had pushed her in the back while she was leaving the residence. The woman also claimed that she was “attacked” by Goldsmith’s dog, which she described the dog as licking her face.

“The police rightly investigated Ms Berki’s complaint,” Goldsmith wrote. “I cooperated fully with the investigation, provided a truthful statement about what I saw and also provided CCTV footage, which showed my overly exuberant but totally unaggressive dog jumping up.”

Following the investigation, law enforcement concluded that there was no case or criminal offense regarding Berki’s complaint. The police also told Goldsmith that Berki didn’t tell them she had been assaulted, threatened, or falsely imprisoned.

“There was also a subsequent review of the investigation by the IPCC and Thames Valley Police Professional Standards which found that the original police investigation had been correct in its findings,” the screenwriter recalled. “In the meantime, several untrue stories appeared in the tabloid papers. Ms Berki forwarded an email to me confirming a payment for one such story she had received from The Sun newspaper. Articles were also published in The Telegraph, The Mail and The Mirror at Ms Berki’s instigation which contained her account of the alleged incident.”

Despite being deemed “really very nice, very, very nice” by Berki, Goldsmith said Berki “embarked on a campaign of vicious antisemitic and threatening abuse online and in emails.” She also listed several disturbing messages she had received amid the online harassment.

Goldsmith also alleged that Berki made untrue allegations about her.

“The number, tone and content of these messages was extremely frightening,” she pointed out. “It was distressing for my then teenage children and my family. I was concerned that Ms Berki was potentially a real danger to my family and me. I have had stalkers before and this behaviour felt similarly threatening.”

Goldsmith again confirmed that she was no longer in contact with Brand; she agreed to the suggestion from the comedian’s lawyer to request a harassment order. The order was intended to stop Berki from targeting her and her family. The High Court and the Court of Appeal have upheld the harassment injunction multiple times.

Last December, Goldsmith instructed her attorney to ask Berki’s barrister to confirm that she had agreed to vary the injunction so she could speak to the police if she wished.

“I did this despite my real fears that the harassment would re-commence and that her threatening antisemitism, if again unleashed, might exacerbate the danger to my children and me that we continue to face because of our Jewish heritage and their father’s political career and incarceration in Pakistan,” she shared. “Her barrister has not responded to my lawyer since May of this year despite trying to engage him. I was informed by her lawyer that any change to the injunction must also be agreed by Brand.  I have no ability to compel Brand in this matter, as I have not seen or spoken to him in over a decade.”

Goldsmith said she hoped the information would clear up the speculation about her involvement in the anti-harassment order. She added she was glad and relieved that Brand has finally faced justice.

On Nov. 10, a Metropolitan Police spokesperson told multiple outlets that “several” people had contacted its investigations team during and since Brand’s trial to provide information and report potential criminal allegations.

Brand was found guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault following a month-long trial at Southwark Crown Court, which ended on Nov. 5.