By Lucy Caulkett-

Russell Brand’s criminal trial took a dramatic turn on Tuesday as a fourth alleged victim told a London court that the comedian violently assaulted her at the Capital Radio offices in front of several people, leaving her shocked, shaken and reluctant to speak out about the incident for years. Testifying at Southwark Crown Court, the woman alleged that Brand grabbed her, forced her backwards against a wall and kissed her while touching her body without her consent during the summer of either 2004 or 2005. She told the court that a woman and three men accompanying the actor witnessed the alleged encounter but did not intervene.

The allegations emerged as the high-profile trial of the 50-year-old comedian and actor continued in London. Brand faces seven criminal charges relating to alleged incidents involving six women between 1999 and 2009. The charges comprise three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault. Brand  has pleaded not guilty to the charges and denies all allegations against him. Giving evidence from behind a blue screen, a measure designed to protect the identities of complainants in sexual-offence cases in the United Kingdom, the woman described what she said began as an ordinary working day at the radio station before turning into a frightening and deeply distressing experience.

According to her testimony, she encountered Brand at the Capital Radio offices after leaving a room. She alleged that he suddenly approached her and launched the physical encounter without warning.

“He just leapt on me,” she told the court, describing how Brand allegedly grabbed her face and pushed his body against hers, forcing her to move backwards.

The woman said the encounter continued as Brand allegedly pressed her against a wall and began kissing her. She characterised the alleged attack as “violent”, “sloppy” and “frenzied”, recounting how he touched her breast and buttocks while pinning her against the wall.

Prosecutor Reil Karmy-Jones KC asked the witness about the force she said had been used during the incident. In response, the woman described Brand’s body as being pressed firmly against hers, alleging that his hands moved repeatedly over her body despite her resistance.

“It was rough, his whole body was pressed against me,” she said, according to Sky News. She added that the physical contact was forceful and that he did not stop.

The presence of other people, she told the court, made the alleged incident particularly difficult to comprehend. The woman said Brand was accompanied by one woman and three men, all of whom were nearby during the encounter.

“They didn’t say anything; they didn’t move,” she said, describing their alleged failure to intervene. “It was the middle of the working day, and they just didn’t say anything.”

The witness said she eventually managed to push Brand away and angrily ordered him to leave her alone. She alleged that he stumbled backwards before laughing, with one of the men also beginning to laugh. After the encounter, the woman said she left the building to smoke a cigarette as she attempted to process what had happened. She described feeling “dirty, shocked, stunned and shaken”, emotions she said stayed with her after the alleged assault.

Despite the distress she described, the woman did not report the incident to her employers or the police at the time. She told the court that she did not feel the workplace offered a safe environment in which to raise such concerns and feared that colleagues might dismiss her experience rather than support her. She described a workplace culture in which women were judged on their appearance and clothing, suggesting that such attitudes contributed to her reluctance to speak out.

“Women were rated by colleagues on what we were wearing, how we looked,” she said, according to Sky News. She added that she did not believe there was anyone she could comfortably approach about what had allegedly happened. The witness said she eventually reported the incident in 2023 after watching part of a Channel 4 documentary examining allegations against Brand. The programme prompted her to come forward, despite the considerable time that had elapsed since the alleged encounter.

During cross-examination, Brand’s defence barrister, Ian Winter KC, questioned the witness about her inability to identify the precise year in which the incident allegedly occurred. She acknowledged that she could not remember whether it happened in 2004 or 2005, explaining that more than two decades had passed.

“It was over 20 years ago,” she said.

Winter also challenged her certainty that Brand was the man responsible, given that she had not met him before the alleged incident. The woman maintained that she recognised him and was certain of his identity. “The person who assaulted me was Russell Brand. I can’t forge that,” she told the court. The witness became tearful as she spoke about appearing before the court, insisting that bringing the allegations forward had not been something she wanted to do.

“This is a situation I did not want to be in. I don’t gain a single thing by saying what happened to me,” she said.

Her testimony followed evidence presented on Monday by another alleged victim, who made separate allegations against Brand as the prosecution continued presenting its case. The previous witness’s account formed part of the wider proceedings examining allegations involving different women over a period spanning nearly a decade. Both accounts remain allegations to be tested through the criminal justice process, and Brand denies the charges against him.

The latest testimony places renewed attention on the circumstances in which the women say the alleged incidents occurred, as well as the reasons some complainants say they did not report their experiences immediately. The fourth accuser’s account, in particular, raised questions about the response of those allegedly present and the workplace environment she described.

However, the defence has challenged aspects of the evidence, including the witness’s recollection of the date and her identification of the accused. The court will consider the evidence presented by the prosecution alongside the defence’s challenges before reaching any conclusions.