Russell Brand – by Patrick Donnelly

REBRANDING

Everywhere one looks, listens, or reads the allegations are being reported on the basis that Brand is guilty. Maybe he is. But guilt, or otherwise, is supposed to be determined in a properly constituted Court of Law. Not by the Court of public opinion which can be accurately described as the Lynch Mob.

The reporting of allegations has been gleeful with malice directed at Brand. I don’t know him and I don’t know if the malice is deserved. The vast majority of people are in the same position but they are being encouraged to presume his guilt.

Brand is entitled, under our legal system, to a Fair Trial (if there is a trial) and he is entitled to the Presumption of Innocence. He is being denied both. A fair trial is now impossible as it would be nigh on impossible to find 12 jurors whose judgement has not been impaired by the biased opinions doled out by what passes for objective reporting (it isn’t).

Brand has already been tried by Media and found guilty. No Fairness. No due process. Forget the Judge and Jury and go straight to Execution. Gruesome.

The Presumption of Innocence is an ancient legal principle, not a legal nicety dreamed up by some liberal Lawyer. “Ei Incumbit Probatio, Qui Dicit, Non Qui Negat” literally means “The burden of proof lies with the person who affirms and not with who denies.” The principle is that the onus to prove the guilt of the accused lies upon the person who affirms it. According to this principle, there is a presumption of innocence for every individual unless he or she is proven guilty. It prevents the harassment, embarrassment, and punishment of people who might be wrongfully or maliciously framed.

If there is evidence to prove that of which Brand stands accused, then let it be brought to Court. Let the defence barristers cross examine the accusers and let a jury consider it. Let Brand bring his own evidence. Let a jury consider that too. Innocent until proved guilty?

If any of the accusers are serious let them make the allegations, which they made anonymously on television, in open court where instead of a soft soap interview from a television company, they will be subjected to a detailed cross examination by a skilled defence barrister.

Brand has admitted promiscuity in his past. Promiscuity is a two-way street. Brand could not have practised his promiscuity without the willing assistance of promiscuous women. It is not only men who are promiscuous (which should go without saying). In any event his promiscuity cannot be taken as an indication of guilt.

Whether we like it or not Brand, and many like him, was, and may still be an attractive man, to a lot of women. One of my young colleagues from a few years ago was besotted with him. Incomprehensible to me but I am not a 25 year old heterosexual female.

Trial by Media is wrong. Someone is accused (anonymously) and they are judged guilty and treated as a pariah. No matter how unpleasant a person may be, the Media acting as judge, jury and executioner is just wrong. One day it could happen to you or me.

If you have an ex-wife or girlfriend(s), who are not best pleased with you and they decide to make an allegation against you, even many years later, you are toast. The police will investigate with a view to securing a conviction. They will not investigate to ascertain if the claims are false and in many cases, even where there is prima facie evidence of falsehood, they will not prosecute your accuser. In effect accusations against you are risk free for your accuser.

Your life may be ruined even if a case is never taken to Court. It will be put on hold for several years at the very least.

There have been well publicised cases of the withholding of evidence from defence lawyers by police and prosecutors but it continues.

The names of accusers are never published. The police refer to the accusers as “victims”. In effect the Presumption of Innocence has been completely undermined. In this country you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but that principle has been lost. 

Many men, and occasionally women, are falsely accused and they can lose everything. Harvey Proctor for example lost his home and lost his job. People can lose their jobs as soon as their name is published.

If you are delighting in Brand’s predicament think again. He may be guilty but that is not for you or the BBC to decide. He may be innocent. Someday they may come for you.  

The Media is replete with creeps. Brand may be a creep but that does not make him guilty.

The BBC is rotten to the core. Savile hid in plain sight within the BBC for years. Time for someone to investigate how that happened.