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 in prison yesterday, is understood to be considering a new legal team should he face additional charges, according to legal sources.
The development follows criticism from some observers of the courtroom strategy adopted by his counsel, Ian Winter KC.
Brand is believed to have spent about £1 million on his defence. His apparent decision to reconsider Mr Winter’s services came after the barrister’s forceful questioning of the women who gave evidence was criticised by some as veering towards “victim blaming”.
Mr Winter’s arguments during Monday’s sentencing hearing also appeared to find little favour with the judge.
He told the court that his client was “a fundamentally different person today”, 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, saying: “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 the women assaulted by the comedian in a bar was “not particularly vulnerable” when Brand groped her breasts.
Ian Winter KC, Russell Brand’s lawyer, leaves Southwark Crown Court on Monday following Brand’s sentencing
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” but was not “vulnerable”.
The sentencing judge later stressed that women retain the right to refuse consent and seek justice through the criminal courts, regardless of their circumstances.
He told the court: “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.”
Mr Winter had already faced heavy criticism after swearing at Sunday Times journalist Ros Urwin outside the court following Brand’s guilty verdict. Ms Urwin’s 2023 investigation helped prompt the women to come forward. When she said justice had been served, he replied: “Well it wasn’t, you f****d it. Congratulations.”
Following complaints from witnesses and from The Sunday Times, Mr Winter referred himself to the Bar Standards Board over the confrontation.
At an earlier pre-trial hearing, Mr Winter had suggested that reporting by The Sunday Times and Channel Four might amount to contempt of court and an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Ms Urwin said the suggestion 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 McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, described Brand’s defence as among the poorest 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 women had “resisted, screamed or even tried to leave”.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Sir Mark said: “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.”
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: South Carolina Father Left Sleeping 6-Year-Old in Target Line for Pokémon Cards, Police Say
He said he would support the Victims’ Commissioner’s proposal for a legal requirement obliging judges to explain rape myths and misconceptions to juries in every rape trial.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley criticised Mr Winter, pictured, for telling jurors that none of the women had “resisted, screamed or even tried to leave”
Ian Winter KC is pictured cross-examining one of the women who accused Brand 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 further criminal charges after his conviction in the first trial.
Prosecutors may consider future convictions more achievable following the jury’s verdicts in the case.
The comedian also faces potential civil claims. In recent months, as reported by the Mail, he appears to have begun rearranging his finances in an effort to protect assets from 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.
Brand also moved £8.7 million from his television and stand-up company last year, before facing trial for rape and sexual assault.
The nearby Crown Inn at Pishill, a 500-year-old pub bought by Brand for £850,000 in 2020, was sold in October 2025 for £975,000.
His plans to convert the former pub into a private recording studio and office were rejected by South Oxfordshire District Council 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 Brand and Laura since their marriage.
Before the pub was sold, Brand and Laura changed their registered address from the UK to the United States, where they established a home in Florida with their three children.
Earlier this year, Brand quietly disclosed plans to close Pablo Diablo’s Legitimate Business Firm Limited, the company that had managed income from his television, Hollywood and online media work.
The company’s assets fell from £15.3 million to £3.96 million in the year ending in 2025 — a drop of more than £11 million.
Laura Gallacher, left, wife of British comedian and actor Russell Brand, arrives at Southwark Crown Court in south London on November 9, 2026
The business handled payments 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 advertising income through the platform.
The company’s planned closure, which began at the start of the year, was viewed as a sign that Brand was preparing for the financial consequences of the trial.
He is also the subject of a US civil lawsuit 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 around £3 million in reserves, compared with £12 million at the same point the previous year.
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.