On Thursday, the 5th November, Russell Brand was convicted of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault.
During the trial, his wife, Laura Brand nee Gallacher, was called as a character witness. She told the court, “Russell, my husband, is caring, he is kind, he is a wonderful father to our children.”
This isn’t the first time that a celebrity accused of abuse has deployed a “family man” defence strategy.
In 2014, the daughter of Rolf Harris, Bindi Nicholls, gave evidence when he was on trial for indecently assaulting four girls. Bindi testified that he “wouldn’t do” what he was accused of and tried to cast doubt on the evidence of her childhood best friend, whom Harris was eventually convicted of abusing.
We also see how, once convicted, abusers reach for the “good father” mitigation technique.
We saw this last year when Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs was convicted of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. During the sentencing hearing, the defence played an 11.5-minute video which portrayed him as a beloved father and benevolent member of his community. It ended with all his children saying “I love you so much”.
In September 2023, Danny Masterson, one of the stars of That ‘70s Show, was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison for the rape of two women. His co-stars, Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis, wrote letters to the judge to support Masterson, arguing that it would be an injustice if a little girl had to grow up without a “good father”. They eventually gave a public apology after his conviction saying that “they were intended for the judge to read and not to undermine the testimony of the victims”.
This “good father” narrative backfired, however, in the case of Kielan Mooney, a member of the Irish Defence Forces who was convicted of raping a fellow soldier. At a sentencing hearing for Mooney, it was reported that his barrister had said he was “a dedicated father” who “idolises his children”. The defence was trying to argue for bail for Mooney prior to being fully sentenced, in order that he could spend time with his children before heading to prison. After these remarks were reported, two women contacted the prosecutor to testify that they shared children with Mooney and he had almost no contact with his children, and didn’t pay any maintenance. One even testified that “I would never let him near my children now”.
The tactics of distracting jurors and judges with the ‘family man’ and ‘good father’ narrative are all too well known to survivors in family court. Yet here, the technique is supercharged as the victims are the ones directly objecting to parental involvement or contact. When mothers raise concerns in family court, they risk not only being called a liar, but of attempting to remove a child’s greatest asset in a patriarchal narrative: a father.
Our report “Scratching the Surface” was released as part of our “Breaking Bias” campaign, highlighting how, in public judgments, fathers are easily praised, whilst mothers are heavily scrutinised. Mothers were more likely to be presented as “emotional” or “fragile” and criticised for seeing fathers (whom they accused of abuse) in a poor light. Mothers are portrayed as a “good parent” when they remain open to contact and are seen to want to facilitate a relationship. Their day-to-day, hour-by-hour work as the primary carer is minimised. The father’s efforts or even motivations as the non-resident parent, on the other hand, are venerated.
We hope that the days of the “family man” and “good father” strategy in criminal courts are coming to an end and that judges and jurors can see through these tired old tropes. What we need now, however, is a reckoning on how it plays out in family courts, and how it can distract from the harms of abuse and the risks to children and victims.