In 2014, a massage therapist called Sylvie Berki accused Russell Brand of assaulting her. The police took no further action. Mr Brand and his then girlfriend, Jemima Goldsmith, sued her. Ms Berki had no lawyer, and there was no trial. But the High Court issued an extraordinary injunction that silenced her for the rest of her life. This week Mr Brand was convicted of rape and three sexual assaults.

We have obtained a copy of the injunction, which has never previously been published. It was supposed to prevent harassment, but it went well beyond that. It prohibits Ms Berki from telling anyone what she says happened to her – not journalists, not friends, not family, and not even the police. The court also orderd Ms Berki to pay £50,000 in legal costs within two weeks (which she couldn’t afford) and authorised her bankruptcy.

We don’t know whether Ms Berki’s allegations were true, and Mr Brand’s convictions don’t establish that they were. But whilst nobody established that Ms Berki was lying, the High Court made an order that prevents her from ever speaking about what she says happened to her.

This September, a Court of Appeal judge acknowledged concerns about the extraordinary breadth of the injunction, but it remains in place. We think the injunction should never have been granted in these terms. It’s a disturbing example of what happens when wealthy, powerful people take an unrepresented defendant to court.

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 44 points 16 hours ago

People wonder why women often dont come forward with rape and assaults. They are often punished and blacklisted. Out society needs a reboot.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    So, she claims he assaulted her, and because she couldn't lawyer up, ends up bankrupt and can't ever talk about it again. That's insane, especially for no trial.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 16 hours ago

    Perhaps Brand's convictions don't indicate guilt in this matter, but perhaps his convictions might mean someone take another fucking look at this, yeah?

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 child)

    Name the motherfucking judge!

    Edit: "Mr. Justice Jay," apparently. That corrupt fuck needs to not only be immediately and permanently removed from the bench, but also suffer.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 12 hours ago

    He sounds delightful...

    In May 2019, the Court of Appeal adopted his own terminology, describing one of Jay's own judgments as being hardly "pellucid". As well as levelling this mocking criticism at his legal writing, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on every ground raised, including the ground that Jay had been so overbearing, rude, and bullying to the claimant (whose first language was not English but Polish, and who was acting without legal help), that the trial had been unfair.[10][11] In June 2020, the UK Supreme Court went further and found that Jay had "harassed and intimidated [the claimant] in ways which surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented".[12]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jay

  • source
  • parent
  • 41 comments in c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk view that post
    [–] 78 points 2 days ago

    That’s utterly insane.

  • source
  • [–] 55 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    This judge deserves to be removed for this Jesus fucking Christ

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago

    Re. "The Hon." Mr Justice Jay:

    In May 2019, the Court of Appeal adopted his own terminology, describing one of Jay's own judgments as being hardly "pellucid". As well as levelling this mocking criticism at his legal writing, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on every ground raised, including the ground that Jay had been so overbearing, rude, and bullying to the claimant (whose first language was not English but Polish, and who was acting without legal help), that the trial had been unfair. In June 2020, the UK Supreme Court went further and found that Jay had "harassed and intimidated [the claimant] in ways which surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented".

    He seems like an amiable fellow. It would certainly be a condign punishment if he were the first high court judge in living memory to be removed by parliament.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 2 days ago

    I hope she goes to his sentencing and does a slow clap as he gets several years

  • source
  • [–] 52 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

    She had no lawyer. No trial. Yet she was silenced for life - even barred from speaking to the police.

    It looks like the intention was then to bankrupt Ms Berki.

    The judge had mentioned she had no money, but the order says:

    You'd expect the judgment would contain the discussion of whether these restrictions were necessary and proportionate (or even lawful).

    It does not.

    A lawyer would have raised these points. Ms Berki had no lawyer.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago*

    This puts her situation in a different light.

    If she speaks out, she'll have her assets seized by the Court. If she doesn't speak out, she'll have her assets seized by her rapist.

    If you're gonna lose everything either way...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 days ago (11 children)

    Gotta love it when they say behaviour that any reasonable man would find contemptible is contempt of court.

    Mr Justice Jay should consider his position. Same of the judges who sat on the 3 appeals she's been denied over the last 12 years.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago* (9 children)

    Appeals courts cant overturn based on vibes. There needs to be some procedural error or new information, and judgement is on that. They arent retrials.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (8 children)

    We’d expect the judgment would contain the discussion of whether these restrictions were necessary and proportionate, and whether they were compatible with the exclusions in the Protection from Harassment Act. It does not. A lawyer would surely have raised these arguments, but Ms Berki of course had no lawyer.

    Without going through the appeals with a fine toothed comb, I couldn't say whether she raised these arguments along the way or if this is just an observation of the author. However she never really had an appeal, she was denied the chance to any full hearing at any stage over the last 12 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (7 children)

    Which puts meat on the adage that a person who represents themself has a fool for a client.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    That adage assumes you are rich. A poor person who represents themselves is just poor and a victim of the system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Somewhat, but it also seems Mr Justice Jay is just an asshole to litigants in person - in direct contradiction to the rules he was supposed to follow.

    Mr Justice Jay does not have a good record of dealing with litigants-in-person. Two years later, in a different case, he behaved so poorly that the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court found that he’d bullied a litigant-in-person. The Supreme Court found that he had aimed a “barrage of hostility” at the litigant-in-person, and “harassed and intimidated him in ways which surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 2 days ago
    [–] 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    There is no justice, only the interests of the powerful.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Broadly disagree but agree about a specific element.

    I think there’s plenty of justice between two people of give or take equal wealth.

    Money, unfortunately, does help one prepare a defense or attack better than those without money. So in that sense, justice is very unevenly served between parties of unequal wealth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago*

    Its also power in and of itself. Two rich people in dispute, one with connections to political power, will have the advantage over the other.

    I agree that, in practical terms, the ability to absorb costs is a decisive factor in most legal cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago

    How sad some powerful people protect the abusers all over the world. Do better and stop abusing others in the first place!

  • source
  • This sounds like an absolutely fucking nightmare. What makes it so sad is that you know, even now that this is public, the people directly involved will never get proper punishments, maybe some slap on the wrists and retire early.

    Then there’s a bigger question. Was this a one-off? Or have other injunctions been granted, supposedly to prevent harassment, but actually silencing people even in private conversations with friends, family and the police?

    How likely is it, that this truly was the first and only time this guy thought he was god and could do whatever he wants? Honestly, it doesn't even matter if the original claims were true, but imho this Justice Jay should rot in a dark cell.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago

    That Ms Berki wasn't then tried for murder is a genuine fucking wonder. She's a stronger soul than I.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    So does that also mean that the minutes of the trial couldn't be accessed by a journalist with use of an FOI request? Surely it was done in open court at the time?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

    Does the UK have FOI requests?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago* (1 child)

    Freedom of Information Act 2000

    This website has a good history of freedom of information laws in the UK.

    Court records are typically publicly available, unless the judge seals it. There is usually an administrative cost to access court records.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 days ago* (8 children)

    The UK is a great example of what happens when you've got zero right to free speech. God knows what we will find out about the Royals when they're finally kicked out on their ass. It will be horrifying

    On the other hand, at least Prince Andrew is facing legal consequences, which is more than the USA can say about Trump.

    Fuck Russel Brand, lock him up for life.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • The UK is a great example of what happens when you've got zero right to free speech

    And America does? Even with the First Amendment, the government and rich organisations and individuals regularly silence people who say the wrong things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    We do have a right to free speech under article 10 of the human rights act - the thing that all the right wing parties are saying we should remove.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Nah, the UK is just a shithole.

    Also the US is a great example of what happens when there is absolute free speech.

    So maybe the problem is letting Epsteinis run countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    The US's problem is not free speech, it is that the rich are the only ones free to speak.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    When anyone can say anything, those who yell loudest will drown out the others. That is definitely a problem. But more fundamentally, while differing opinions are useful on many issues, there are also many questions where one answer is right and another wrong. You cannot have people publicly saying that vaccines cause autism, or that deworming tablets can cure Covid-19. That stuff gets people killed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Freedom of speech is a complicated thing, and a lot of peope have trouble understanding where the line is, even though it is fairly clear in principle.

    Freedom of speech "ends" when that speech is a mechanism by which another crime is committed. It's not the words that are illegal. It's what the words bring into action.

    If you offer to pay someone to kill your wife, you can't get off by claiming freedom of speech, because you're charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

    If you lie about the terms of a contract, the crime is fraud, not speech.

    If you yell "fire" in a theatre and people are hurt attempting to flee, the crime is inciting panic, not rhe word "fire."

    Ideally, telling an angry mob to march on the capital and "fight like hell" to prevent the certification of an election is fomenting an insurrection, not speech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 18 hours ago

    Any speech can be construed as a mechanism by which another crime is committed. At that point, it's just semantics. Some countries hold that there is no absolute right to free speech. Others say there is, but that the speaker may commit other crimes in the process. As long as the result is the same, the distinction seems mostly academic.

  • source
  • parent