Russell Brand Denies Drunken Sex Assault on ‘Arthur,’ Cites Sobriety

Russell Brand claims he doesn’t “recognize” the actress suing him for sex assault in New York and that there’s no way he drunkenly accosted her on the set of the film Arthur because he was already years into his decades-long sobriety during production.  

In paperwork filed Monday as his answer to the woman’s Nov. 6 complaint, Brand says the “entire lawsuit” is premised on the “false claim” that he was visibly intoxicated when he allegedly exposed himself and assaulted the plaintiff while filming the remake of the early Eighties comedy at Manhattan’s Le Cirque restaurant. Brand — who was separately accused of sexual assault by four other women in a report published last year — claims he quit drugs and alcohol for good on Dec. 13, 2002, so he was eight years sober when he reprised the role of film’s alcoholic main character Arthur Bach, originally played by Dudley Moore.

“It appears that plaintiff is unable to distinguish acting from reality,” Brand and his defense lawyer, Andrew Brettler, say in the new filing signed by Brettler. “While Brand’s job was to act drunk and portray a drunk (in) the film, he did not drink a sip of alcohol or consume any drugs at any time during production.”

The plaintiff, who alleged she was hired for a small role in Arthur, filed her lawsuit anonymously as a Jane Doe. Her identity has been revealed to Brand under seal. In his new filing, Brand denies “cornering” her and says her “faulty memory” is “fatal” to her claims. He claims the “open alcohol bottle” mentioned in her lawsuit was a prop for the film.

“Indeed, Brand does not recognize plaintiff by name or from her photograph, and (he) does not recall ever having any interaction with her whatsoever. The allegations in the complaint are false in every material respect,” his filing states.

Attempts to reach Doe’s lawyers were not immediately successful Tuesday night. In her complaint, Doe alleged Brand attacked her on July 7, 2010 while they were inside the restaurant, waiting to film a scene. She alleged Brand locked eyes with her and “pulled his erect penis out of his pants in an open and obvious manner.”

“Prior to the assault, Mr. Brand appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, and was carrying a bottle of vodka on set,” Doe stated in an affidavit previously filed with her complaint. “He then exposed his penis to me on the set and in full view of the cast and crew.” She allegesdWarner Bros. Pictures, Warner Bros. Discovery, Bender-Spink, and Langley Park Pictures — all listed as co-defendants in the case — either had employees on set that day or bear some responsibility for what allegedly transpired next.

“The sexual assault happened later that same day when I was in the bathroom. Mr. Brand entered after me and assaulted me as a member of the production crew guarded the door from the outside,” Doe alleged. She claimed Brand blocked her exit with his body and cornered her with his “pants pulled down” and his erect penis exposed. “Brand then forced plaintiff into a stall and repeatedly asked her to kiss his exposed penis. Brand then pushed plaintiff’s head down and forced his penis into her mouth. The forced oral sex continued until plaintiff was able to push Brand away and escape the bathroom,” Doe’s complaint alleged.

In her affidavit, Doe said she filed anonymously because she fears retribution and longterm repercussions. The woman claimed Brand “previously used his social media platform to rally his fan base” to support him in the face of multiple accusations. “As a result of the sexual assault by Russell Brand, I have found it difficult to trust others. I fear that if my identity will become public, I will forever be tied to him on the Internet, worsening my feelings of distrust, betrayal and isolation,” Doe wrote in her affidavit signed Oct. 7, 2023.

“I also have professional concerns about being named publicly in this matter. When the assault happened, it was the first day of a three-day booking. However, after the assault, I was not brought back for the second or third day, and was only paid for one day of work,” she stated. “I still maintain my career as an actor, and I am terrified of being blacklisted in the industry or suffering other negative effects beyond what I already suffered if my name is associated with a sexual assault lawsuit against others in the industry. I cannot bear to imagine my career that I love being jeopardized at this point in my life.”

The corporate defendants in the ongoing case have until Feb. 20 to file their answers. According to British media, Brand has been questioned by London’s Metropolitan Police regarding six allegations of “non-recent” sexual offenses. It was last September that allegations from the four women surfaced in an article by The Times UK and an episode of the Channel 4 investigative show Dispatches. Brand, 48, has denied the allegations. His U.K. publisher Pan Macmillan’s Bluebird halted the publication of any future releases from the actor following investigations into the allegations.

Russell Brand claims he doesn’t “recognize” the actress suing him for sex assault in New York and that there’s no way he drunkenly accosted her on the set of the film Arthur because he was already years into his decades-long sobriety during production.  

In paperwork filed Monday as his answer to the woman’s Nov. 6 complaint, Brand says the “entire lawsuit” is premised on the “false claim” that he was visibly intoxicated when he allegedly exposed himself and assaulted the plaintiff while filming the remake of the early Eighties comedy at Manhattan’s Le Cirque restaurant. Brand — who was separately accused of sexual assault by four other women in a report published last year — claims he quit drugs and alcohol for good on Dec. 13, 2002, so he was eight years sober when he reprised the role of film’s alcoholic main character Arthur Bach, originally played by Dudley Moore.

“It appears that plaintiff is unable to distinguish acting from reality,” Brand and his defense lawyer, Andrew Brettler, say in the new filing signed by Brettler. “While Brand’s job was to act drunk and portray a drunk (in) the film, he did not drink a sip of alcohol or consume any drugs at any time during production.”

The plaintiff, who alleged she was hired for a small role in Arthur, filed her lawsuit anonymously as a Jane Doe. Her identity has been revealed to Brand under seal. In his new filing, Brand denies “cornering” her and says her “faulty memory” is “fatal” to her claims. He claims the “open alcohol bottle” mentioned in her lawsuit was a prop for the film.

“Indeed, Brand does not recognize plaintiff by name or from her photograph, and (he) does not recall ever having any interaction with her whatsoever. The allegations in the complaint are false in every material respect,” his filing states.

Attempts to reach Doe’s lawyers were not immediately successful Tuesday night. In her complaint, Doe alleged Brand attacked her on July 7, 2010 while they were inside the restaurant, waiting to film a scene. She alleged Brand locked eyes with her and “pulled his erect penis out of his pants in an open and obvious manner.”

“Prior to the assault, Mr. Brand appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, and was carrying a bottle of vodka on set,” Doe stated in an affidavit previously filed with her complaint. “He then exposed his penis to me on the set and in full view of the cast and crew.” She allegesdWarner Bros. Pictures, Warner Bros. Discovery, Bender-Spink, and Langley Park Pictures — all listed as co-defendants in the case — either had employees on set that day or bear some responsibility for what allegedly transpired next.

“The sexual assault happened later that same day when I was in the bathroom. Mr. Brand entered after me and assaulted me as a member of the production crew guarded the door from the outside,” Doe alleged. She claimed Brand blocked her exit with his body and cornered her with his “pants pulled down” and his erect penis exposed. “Brand then forced plaintiff into a stall and repeatedly asked her to kiss his exposed penis. Brand then pushed plaintiff’s head down and forced his penis into her mouth. The forced oral sex continued until plaintiff was able to push Brand away and escape the bathroom,” Doe’s complaint alleged.

In her affidavit, Doe said she filed anonymously because she fears retribution and longterm repercussions. The woman claimed Brand “previously used his social media platform to rally his fan base” to support him in the face of multiple accusations. “As a result of the sexual assault by Russell Brand, I have found it difficult to trust others. I fear that if my identity will become public, I will forever be tied to him on the Internet, worsening my feelings of distrust, betrayal and isolation,” Doe wrote in her affidavit signed Oct. 7, 2023.

“I also have professional concerns about being named publicly in this matter. When the assault happened, it was the first day of a three-day booking. However, after the assault, I was not brought back for the second or third day, and was only paid for one day of work,” she stated. “I still maintain my career as an actor, and I am terrified of being blacklisted in the industry or suffering other negative effects beyond what I already suffered if my name is associated with a sexual assault lawsuit against others in the industry. I cannot bear to imagine my career that I love being jeopardized at this point in my life.”

The corporate defendants in the ongoing case have until Feb. 20 to file their answers. According to British media, Brand has been questioned by London’s Metropolitan Police regarding six allegations of “non-recent” sexual offenses. It was last September that allegations from the four women surfaced in an article by The Times UK and an episode of the Channel 4 investigative show Dispatches. Brand, 48, has denied the allegations. His U.K. publisher Pan Macmillan’s Bluebird halted the publication of any future releases from the actor following investigations into the allegations.