New Delhi: Russell Brand’s former partner Jemima Goldsmith has accused the comedian of violence, coercive control and abuse during their relationship. She revealed that she had to call the police to have him removed from her home following a violent incident in 2014.
Goldsmith, who dated Brand for about a year, made the allegations in a lengthy statement on X on 9 November, hours after the comedian was sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison for rape and sexual assault. She also addressed the harassment injunction that she and Brand had obtained against massage therapist Szilvia Berki, who had accused Brand of assaulting her at Goldsmith’s Oxfordshire home.
“I had to call the police to have him removed from my house in 2014 during a violent incident,” Goldsmith wrote.
Her statement brought renewed attention to two separate accounts of alleged violence involving Brand in 2014. The first was Goldsmith’s own account of abuse during their relationship. The second concerned Berki’s allegations following a massage appointment at Goldsmith’s home. The latter led to a court order restricting Berki from discussing the incident, which has since come under criticism for the breadth of its restrictions.
Goldsmith said she had not pressed charges against Brand or spoken publicly about the incident at the time because she was concerned about the impact of press attention on her teenage children.
“I have neither seen nor spoken to Brand since that period in 2014,” she said, adding that the experience had left a lasting impact on her.
Brand was convicted of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault relating to incidents between 2004 and 2009. He was acquitted of two other rape charges and one charge of attempted indecent assault.
The 2014 massage appointment and the harassment injunction
The controversy surrounding the injunction dates back to June 2014, when Goldsmith arranged a massage for Brand as a birthday present at her Oxfordshire home. However, by the time massage therapist Berki arrived, Brand had reportedly changed his mind and asked her to leave.
Berki later filed a complaint with Thames Valley Police, alleging that Brand had pushed her in the back as she was leaving. She also claimed that Goldsmith’s dog had attacked her. Brand denied the allegations.
Goldsmith said she was present during the incident but did not see Brand do anything wrong. She said she also handed CCTV footage to the police, who investigated the complaint and found no grounds for further action.
The matter later went to court. Brand and Goldsmith secured a harassment injunction against Berki from the High Court. The final order, issued in October 2015, restricted Berki from speaking about the incident.
Goldsmith had defended her decision to seek the injunction, saying Berki had sent threatening messages to her and her family, including antisemitic abuse. She said she agreed to the order on the advice of Brand’s lawyer, with the intention of protecting her family.
“Although I was at this point no longer in contact with Brand, I agreed to the suggestion by his lawyer of a harassment order. My sole reason was to stop Ms Berki targeting me and my family,” she wrote.
Goldsmith also said she never intended to stop Berki from approaching the police. She added that she was willing to have the court order changed to address concerns about the restrictions it placed on Berki.
Why the injunction has come under scrutiny
The injunction came back into the news after Tax Policy Associates, a non-profit think tank founded by former tax lawyer Dan Neidle, published a report on 7 November. The report questioned whether the court order imposed excessively broad restrictions on Berki’s ability to discuss her allegations.
Berki was barred from discussing the incident not only with journalists but also with friends and family. The restrictions also extended to certain communications with the police, preventing her from sharing details of what she said had happened.
The organisation said Berki had represented herself in court and that the case was decided without a full trial. There was no judicial finding on whether her allegations against Brand were true.
The report also highlighted the financial burden on Berki. She was ordered to pay £50,000 in legal costs within two weeks. The order allowed further action to be taken if she failed to pay.
Tax Policy Associates also cautioned against treating Brand’s subsequent convictions as evidence of what happened during the 2014 massage appointment. The two matters involved separate allegations.
The Court of Appeal considered the injunction again in September 2026, raising concerns about the breadth of its restrictions but declining to reopen the case. It said any application to vary the order should be made to the High Court.
Tax Policy Associates said the case raised wider concerns about the use of harassment orders to restrict what people can say, particularly when one side does not have legal representation.
Goldsmith’s allegations also come against the backdrop of the investigations into Brand that became public in September 2023. She said she had helped journalists with their investigations. She also said she was willing to give evidence about Brand’s behaviour if the publications faced legal action.
(Edited By Raunaq Lekhi)
Jemima Goldsmith seems to have dated just about everyone she possibly came across.
Just goes on to show what an idiot Imran Khan was and always has been. No wonder his opponents refer to him as ‘Im the Dim’.