Dan Neidle

JK’s statement makes it clear. The parties think it stops Ms Berki speaking to the police.

Sonia, I don't think this can be right. Please read JK.'s statement. The parties appear to think the injunction stops her going to the police.

Perhaps most clear is the post by Ms Goldsmith earlier today. It seems everyone involved thought the injunction stopped Ms Berki speaking to the police.

Here’s what Falk LJ said. I translate this from judge-speak into “I’m uncomfortable with this” And note how she puts police in the same category as new therapists (clearly prohibited)

Good guess!

In 2014, a woman accused Russell Brand of assault. A court then banned her from ever talking about it, even to the police. She had no lawyer; there was no proper trial. It's hard to believe so here, for the first time, is a copy of the injunction: taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/11/07/…

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.

It looks like the intention was then to bankrupt Ms Berki. The judge had mentioned she had no money, but the order says:

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.

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".

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. 🧵:

@apsamuelson @TS_Church

Witnesses to Parliamentary Committees have absolute parliamentary immunity. If the House of Women and Equalities Committee called Ms Berki as a witness then she'd be unconstrained by the injunction. And, for the first time in eleven years, we could hear her side of the story.

So what precisely did Ms Berki allege? There's little in the UK press. But there was extensive coverage in the Hungarian press: 24.hu/szorakozas/2014/08/04/…

That judgment has more of Ms Berki's background. Judge for yourself if summary judgment, with no legal representation, was a reasonable outcome.