British comedian Russell Brand has been accused of sexually assaulting an extra on a movie set in a new lawsuit filed in the US.
The anonymous woman referred to as Jane Doe, claims that Brand, who lives in Henley, attacked her in July 2010 on the set of the film Arthur.
The woman claimed the Brand “appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, and was carrying a bottle of vodka on set” adding that he then exposed himself to her in full view of the cast and crew.
The anonymous woman also shared that Brand allegedly followed her into a bathroom later that day and assaulted her as “a member of production crew guarded the door from outside”.
Russell Brand sued by extra amid sexual assault claims
Official court documents share that the anonymous woman "continues to struggle with the resultant trauma”, with her lawyers applying to suppress her identity to minimise the harm she has already suffered.
Her lawyer added that she still works as an actor and “fears retaliation from current and future employers”.
The lawsuit was submitted by New York lawyer Jordan K Merson who also claimed in a restraining order against Brand that his client had “already appeared to be retaliated against for trying to reject Brand’s advances when she was not allowed back on the second and third day of her work assignment”.
Hollywood film studio Warner Bros Pictures and other production companies involved in the movie are also named as defendants, as per the filing.
The anonymous woman is understood to be seeking an unspecified value of damages from Brand, who has always insisted his relationships “were absolutely, always consensual”.
The claims come after Brand strongly denied accusations made by four women in an investigation by The Sunday Times, The Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches.
In the investigation, Brand was accused of rape, multiple sexual assaults and emotional abuse.
The Metropolitan Police are currently investigating multiple sex offence allegations against Brand as the police shared that all allegations are non-recent, and there have been no arrests.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article