Jemima Goldsmith breaks silence on Russell Brand abuse, says she helped journalists investigate him

Following Russell Brand’s sentencing to 10 years and six months in prison for rape and sexual assault, his former partner Jemima Goldsmith has come forward with her own account of alleged abuse, saying she experienced violence and coercive control during their relationship more than a decade ago.

Jemima said she once called police to have Brand removed from her home during a “violent incident” in 2014 but chose not to press charges because she feared the impact of publicity on her then-teenage children. She also revealed that she later assisted journalists investigating allegations against Brand and had offered to testify about what she described as his abusive behaviour.

I am going to describe some painful and personal things in relation to Russell Brand because I have been put in a position now where I feel that I have no choice other than to do so, given the misleading reports and speculation around the facts of a harassment injunction that was…

— Jemima Goldsmith (@Jemima_Khan) November 9, 2026

Jemima, who was married to former prime minister and founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan from 1995 to 2004 and has two sons with him, Sulaiman and Kasim, married Irish-Australian financier Cameron O’Reilly in September this year. Her two sons walked her down the aisle at the ceremony.

Brand, 51, was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court on Monday after being convicted of raping one woman and sexually assaulting three others in offences committed between 2004 and 2009. He had denied the charges.

He was acquitted of two other rape charges and one count of attempted indecent assault. The Metropolitan Police said Brand will remain on the sex offenders’ register for life.

Jemima posted her lengthy statement on X shortly after the sentencing, saying she felt compelled to speak because of what she described as misleading reporting surrounding a separate harassment injunction involving Brand, herself and a woman named Szilvia Berki.

“I have had my own personal experience of his violence, coercive control and abuse,” Jemima said.

She said she had neither seen nor spoken to Brand since 2014 and described that period of her life as one that had left a lasting impact.

Jemima also stressed that she stood “strongly and unequivocally” with the women whose evidence led to Brand’s conviction, praising their decision to come forward and testify.

Helped journalists investigating Brand

Jemima also disclosed that she had assisted journalists Ros Urwin, Louisa Compton and Dorothy Byrne over several years as they investigated allegations against Brand.

She said she had undertaken to testify about his alleged abusiveness if the newspaper publishing accounts by women accusing Brand was ever sued.

The allegations against Brand first received major public attention through a 2023 joint investigation by The Sunday Times, The Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches. Jemima said she had helped journalists involved in that reporting.

Journalist Rosamund Urwin subsequently confirmed that Jemima had helped her during the investigation and said she had witnessed some of the online abuse directed at her after the injunction controversy resurfaced.

The women involved in Brand’s recent criminal trial were not the same complainants featured in the original 2023 media investigation.

Why the injunction has resurfaced

Jemima said she was making her account public partly because of renewed scrutiny of a harassment injunction obtained against Berki in 2014 and made final the following year.

Berki had been booked to give Brand a massage at Jemima’s home in June 2014. Jemima said Brand changed his mind and asked her to leave after she arrived.

Berki subsequently made allegations about Brand’s conduct to police.

Jemima said she had been present throughout the encounter and had not witnessed anything inappropriate. She added that she cooperated with the police investigation, provided a statement and handed over CCTV footage.

Police ultimately concluded there was no case to answer over the allegations made at the time, according to Jemima.

However, a contemporaneous High Court judgment records that Berki had reported an allegation of assault to police, something that differs from Jemima’s assertion in her latest statement that police said Berki had never told them she had been assaulted.

The legal dispute later centred on Berki’s subsequent communications and online conduct.

Jemima alleged that Berki sent large numbers of threatening and antisemitic messages to her, her family, journalists and organisations with which she was associated.

A High Court judge described Berki’s campaign as “oppressive and unacceptable” when granting protection against harassment.

Jemima said she agreed to Brand’s lawyer seeking an injunction because she feared for herself and her family.

“My sole reason was to stop Ms Berki targeting me and my family,” she said.

Jemima says she supports changing order

Jemima said she now supports varying the injunction so Berki can speak to police again if she wishes.

She said she instructed her lawyer in December last year to contact Berki’s barrister and make clear that she agreed to such a change, despite fears that the alleged harassment could resume.

Jemima said she was subsequently informed that changing the injunction also required Brand’s agreement.

She stressed that she had no ability to compel him to act, having had no contact with him for more than a decade.

Her statement leaves Jemima addressing two issues at once: publicly alleging for the first time that Brand was violent and controlling towards her, while explaining why she previously joined him in seeking legal protection against another woman who had made allegations concerning him.

Jemima said she hoped her account would correct speculation about her role in the injunction and reiterated her support for the women who testified against Brand.

“I am glad and relieved that Russell Brand has finally faced justice,” she said.