In substance this wasn't a harassment injunction at all. It was a libel injunction in disguise.
That's outrageous because (1) you can't usually get a libel injunction at all, and (2) even in the rate cases you can, the defendant gets to argue they were telling the truth.
That's outrageous because (1) you can't usually get a libel injunction at all, and (2) even in the rate cases you can, the defendant gets to argue they were telling the truth.
November 7, 2026 at 9:56 AM
In substance this wasn't a harassment injunction at all. It was a libel injunction in disguise.
That's outrageous because (1) you can't usually get a libel injunction at all, and (2) even in the rate cases you can, the defendant gets to argue they were telling the truth.
That's outrageous because (1) you can't usually get a libel injunction at all, and (2) even in the rate cases you can, the defendant gets to argue they were telling the truth.
What should have happened was an injunction preventing Ms Berki from harassing Brand/Goldsmith.
The injunction goes much, much, further. Ms Berki was forbidden from telling *anyone*. Narrow exceptions: her legal advisers and named doctors.
She can't speak to the police.
The injunction goes much, much, further. Ms Berki was forbidden from telling *anyone*. Narrow exceptions: her legal advisers and named doctors.
She can't speak to the police.
November 7, 2026 at 9:56 AM
What should have happened was an injunction preventing Ms Berki from harassing Brand/Goldsmith.
The injunction goes much, much, further. Ms Berki was forbidden from telling *anyone*. Narrow exceptions: her legal advisers and named doctors.
She can't speak to the police.
The injunction goes much, much, further. Ms Berki was forbidden from telling *anyone*. Narrow exceptions: her legal advisers and named doctors.
She can't speak to the police.
Lots of people can't believe an injunction would stop someone speaking to the police. They've said I must be exaggerating.
But the terms of the injunction are clear. The Court of Appeal itself has said the injunction appears to stop her from speaking to the police.
But the terms of the injunction are clear. The Court of Appeal itself has said the injunction appears to stop her from speaking to the police.
November 8, 2026 at 11:00 AM
Lots of people can't believe an injunction would stop someone speaking to the police. They've said I must be exaggerating.
But the terms of the injunction are clear. The Court of Appeal itself has said the injunction appears to stop her from speaking to the police.
But the terms of the injunction are clear. The Court of Appeal itself has said the injunction appears to stop her from speaking to the police.
I understand Jemima Goldsmith is willing to agree to the injunction being varied. I very much doubt Russell Brand is; so Ms Berki would need to fund an expensive application (or have an unusual amount of pro bono support)
The injunction makes crowdfunding very difficult.
The injunction makes crowdfunding very difficult.
November 7, 2026 at 9:56 AM
I understand Jemima Goldsmith is willing to agree to the injunction being varied. I very much doubt Russell Brand is; so Ms Berki would need to fund an expensive application (or have an unusual amount of pro bono support)
The injunction makes crowdfunding very difficult.
The injunction makes crowdfunding very difficult.
Ms Berki tried to appeal the injunction, initially on her own and then again this year with support from a pro bono barrister. (Full judgments in our report)
But appealing a decision like this is very hard. She really needs to apply to vary the injunction.
But appealing a decision like this is very hard. She really needs to apply to vary the injunction.
November 7, 2026 at 9:56 AM
Ms Berki tried to appeal the injunction, initially on her own and then again this year with support from a pro bono barrister. (Full judgments in our report)
But appealing a decision like this is very hard. She really needs to apply to vary the injunction.
But appealing a decision like this is very hard. She really needs to apply to vary the injunction.
Our full report is here, including a complete copy of the injunction (minus the Confidential Schedule) and three appeal documents.
buff.ly/gJxf13H
buff.ly/gJxf13H
November 7, 2026 at 9:56 AM
Our full report is here, including a complete copy of the injunction (minus the Confidential Schedule) and three appeal documents.
buff.ly/gJxf13H
buff.ly/gJxf13H
I doubt Ms Berki has the resources to apply to lift the injunction. She probably can't crowdfund without breaching the injunction. So we'll never hear from her.
Unless...
Unless...
November 5, 2026 at 5:04 PM
I doubt Ms Berki has the resources to apply to lift the injunction. She probably can't crowdfund without breaching the injunction. So we'll never hear from her.
Unless...
Unless...
One down. "Anonymous Celebrity" has till 4.30 today to appeal against his rejected injunction to hush up his sexual offences.
Russell Brand total sentence of ten years, six months
November 9, 2026 at 2:38 PM
One down. "Anonymous Celebrity" has till 4.30 today to appeal against his rejected injunction to hush up his sexual offences.
We can't see the final injunction, but we can see an interim injunction. It is *insane*.
Berki was forbidden from telling *anyone*. The only exceptions: Thames Valley Police (to challenge its decision), and lawyers (if involved in the proceedings).
Not even friends or family.
Berki was forbidden from telling *anyone*. The only exceptions: Thames Valley Police (to challenge its decision), and lawyers (if involved in the proceedings).
Not even friends or family.
November 5, 2026 at 5:04 PM
We can't see the final injunction, but we can see an interim injunction. It is *insane*.
Berki was forbidden from telling *anyone*. The only exceptions: Thames Valley Police (to challenge its decision), and lawyers (if involved in the proceedings).
Not even friends or family.
Berki was forbidden from telling *anyone*. The only exceptions: Thames Valley Police (to challenge its decision), and lawyers (if involved in the proceedings).
Not even friends or family.
I don't know whether the allegations here are true. But whatever did or didn't happen, the scope of the injunction, and the way it was obtained, are outrageous.
November 8, 2026 at 11:00 AM
I don't know whether the allegations here are true. But whatever did or didn't happen, the scope of the injunction, and the way it was obtained, are outrageous.
The full document is published on our website (link at the end)
The injunction contains reporting restrictions; the specific accusations contained in a Confidential Schedule can't be repeated. So I can't publish that.
The injunction contains reporting restrictions; the specific accusations contained in a Confidential Schedule can't be repeated. So I can't publish that.
November 7, 2026 at 9:56 AM
The full document is published on our website (link at the end)
The injunction contains reporting restrictions; the specific accusations contained in a Confidential Schedule can't be repeated. So I can't publish that.
The injunction contains reporting restrictions; the specific accusations contained in a Confidential Schedule can't be repeated. So I can't publish that.
Why?
Because Brand (and his then-girlfriend, Jemima Goldsmith) obtained a permanent, life-long, injunction against the woman, Sylvie Berki.
Brand/Goldsmith said her accusations amounted to harassment, which caused them "anxiety and distress".
Because Brand (and his then-girlfriend, Jemima Goldsmith) obtained a permanent, life-long, injunction against the woman, Sylvie Berki.
Brand/Goldsmith said her accusations amounted to harassment, which caused them "anxiety and distress".
November 7, 2026 at 9:56 AM
Why?
Because Brand (and his then-girlfriend, Jemima Goldsmith) obtained a permanent, life-long, injunction against the woman, Sylvie Berki.
Brand/Goldsmith said her accusations amounted to harassment, which caused them "anxiety and distress".
Because Brand (and his then-girlfriend, Jemima Goldsmith) obtained a permanent, life-long, injunction against the woman, Sylvie Berki.
Brand/Goldsmith said her accusations amounted to harassment, which caused them "anxiety and distress".
On Thursday I wrote about the 2014 injunction Russell Brand obtained against a woman who accused him of assault.
I've now obtained the final order. It's breathtaking.
She had no lawyer. No trial. Yet she was silenced for life - even barred from speaking to the police.
🧵:
I've now obtained the final order. It's breathtaking.
She had no lawyer. No trial. Yet she was silenced for life - even barred from speaking to the police.
🧵:
November 7, 2026 at 9:56 AM
On Thursday I wrote about the 2014 injunction Russell Brand obtained against a woman who accused him of assault.
I've now obtained the final order. It's breathtaking.
She had no lawyer. No trial. Yet she was silenced for life - even barred from speaking to the police.
🧵:
I've now obtained the final order. It's breathtaking.
She had no lawyer. No trial. Yet she was silenced for life - even barred from speaking to the police.
🧵:
How can an injunction preventing you from speaking to the Police be legal?
November 7, 2026 at 10:34 AM
How can an injunction preventing you from speaking to the Police be legal?
This is shocking. "The injunction was supposed to prevent harassment [of Brand], but it went well beyond that. It prohibits Ms Berki from telling anyone what she says happened to her – not journalists, not friends, not family, and not even the police."
taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/11/07/r...
taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/11/07/r...
Russell Brand’s secret injunction: the order that silenced his accuser
The never-published High Court order Russell Brand won in 2015: a lifelong gag on his accuser, Sylvie Berki, that bars her even from speaking to the police.
taxpolicy.org.uk
November 7, 2026 at 9:34 AM
This is shocking. "The injunction was supposed to prevent harassment [of Brand], but it went well beyond that. It prohibits Ms Berki from telling anyone what she says happened to her – not journalists, not friends, not family, and not even the police."
taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/11/07/r...
taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/11/07/r...
injuncTION
Reigning A-10 Player of the Year Robbie Avila will be dressed and available for Saint Louis tomorrow night against Mizzou in the wake of his injunction, Josh Schertz told @mid-majormadness.bsky.social
Story TK
Story TK
November 5, 2026 at 11:15 PM
injuncTION
A PERMANENT, LIFE-LONG, INJUNCTION
HOW'S THIS EVEN POSSIBLE
HOW'S THIS EVEN POSSIBLE
Why?
Because Brand (and his then-girlfriend, Jemima Goldsmith) obtained a permanent, life-long, injunction against her.
Brand/Goldsmith said Ms Berki's accusations amounted to harassment, which caused them "anxiety and distress".
Because Brand (and his then-girlfriend, Jemima Goldsmith) obtained a permanent, life-long, injunction against her.
Brand/Goldsmith said Ms Berki's accusations amounted to harassment, which caused them "anxiety and distress".
November 6, 2026 at 10:17 AM
A PERMANENT, LIFE-LONG, INJUNCTION
HOW'S THIS EVEN POSSIBLE
HOW'S THIS EVEN POSSIBLE
This isn’t even a super injunction, which are So. Much. Worse. Normal injunctions prevent the media covering something, but these ALSO prevent the reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all. We have literally no way to know when a super injunction has been granted.
Super-injunctions in English law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
November 7, 2026 at 2:59 PM
This isn’t even a super injunction, which are So. Much. Worse. Normal injunctions prevent the media covering something, but these ALSO prevent the reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all. We have literally no way to know when a super injunction has been granted.
Tick tock, its 4.30. In theory... that injunction may be over.
November 9, 2026 at 4:34 PM
Tick tock, its 4.30. In theory... that injunction may be over.
How is that anonymous celebrity doing with his injunction I wonder.
November 9, 2026 at 5:13 PM
How is that anonymous celebrity doing with his injunction I wonder.
Probably more to come at 4.30pm when the appeal window on the anonymity injunction lapses. Bad day for low-talent sociopaths
November 9, 2026 at 2:57 PM
Probably more to come at 4.30pm when the appeal window on the anonymity injunction lapses. Bad day for low-talent sociopaths
She can fuck off considering her part in that ‘harassment’ injunction.
Jemima Goldsmith says ex-partner Russell Brand physically assaulted her www.theguardian.com/news/2026/no...
Jemima Goldsmith says ex-partner Russell Brand physically assaulted her
TV producer, who was in relationship with ex-comedian that reportedly ended in 2014, accuses him of ‘violence, coercive control and abuse’
www.theguardian.com
November 9, 2026 at 9:24 PM
She can fuck off considering her part in that ‘harassment’ injunction.
TPA's work is seriously important in highlighting this disgusting injunction but it feels important that it was *reported on at the time*
taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/11/07/r...
taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/11/07/r...
Russell Brand’s secret injunction: the order that silenced his accuser
The never-published High Court order Russell Brand won in 2015: a lifelong gag on his accuser, Sylvie Berki, that bars her even from speaking to the police.
taxpolicy.org.uk
November 9, 2026 at 12:15 PM
TPA's work is seriously important in highlighting this disgusting injunction but it feels important that it was *reported on at the time*
taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/11/07/r...
taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/11/07/r...
You won't find a copy of the judgment anywhere - it was a summary judgment, without a trial. Ms Berki had no representation.
A lifelong injunction on summary judgment?
Astonishing.
A lifelong injunction on summary judgment?
Astonishing.
November 5, 2026 at 5:04 PM
You won't find a copy of the judgment anywhere - it was a summary judgment, without a trial. Ms Berki had no representation.
A lifelong injunction on summary judgment?
Astonishing.
A lifelong injunction on summary judgment?
Astonishing.
And, again from that interim injunction judgment: if the police decline to prosecute, then how dare Ms Berki try to draw attention to her allegations?
November 5, 2026 at 5:04 PM
And, again from that interim injunction judgment: if the police decline to prosecute, then how dare Ms Berki try to draw attention to her allegations?