Donald Trump Jr. questioned Russell Brand’s 10-year-and-six-month prison sentence and referred to his marriage to Katy Perry. (Photo: Facebook)
In the video, the 48-year-old businessman criticised the prosecution, claiming that Brand was convicted without forensic evidence, DNA or a police report from the time of the alleged offences.
“He was convicted, by the way, with no forensic evidence, no DNA, no police report from the time,” Don Jr. said.
What happened in Russell Brand’s rape and sexual assault case?
Donald Trump Jr. has joined several prominent conservative voices in defending British comedian Russell Brand after he was sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison for rape and sexual assault. In a video shared on X on November 10, US President Donald Trump’s eldest son questioned the conviction and the length of the sentence, claiming Brand was prosecuted after embracing Christianity and expressing support for conservative ideas. Brand, 51, was sentenced at London’s Southwark Crown Court on November 9, 2026, after a jury found him guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault involving four women. The offences took place between 2004 and 2009. It is worth noting that while Trump Jr. referred to allegations dating back 27 years, the four offences resulting in Brand’s convictions were committed between 2004 and 2009.
During sentencing, Judge Joel Bennathan described Brand as a “sexual predator” and criticised his “staggering arrogance”. The judge also said Brand’s growing fame had enabled him to behave as though he was above the rules followed by others. He also questioned the absence of forensic evidence and suggested that the comedian was being treated unfairly by the British justice system. He was acquitted of two other rape charges and one count of attempted indecent assault. Brand denied the charges and maintained that the sexual encounters were consensual. However, the jury found him guilty on four counts following a four-week trial.
The prosecution’s case included testimony from the women, and the absence of DNA evidence does not mean there was no evidence before the court.