Russell Brand's convictions for rape and sexual assault have brought renewed attention to a High Court injunction restricting what massage therapist Szilvia Berki can say about an alleged 2014 incident. Obtained by Brand and his then partner Jemima Goldsmith, the order reportedly prevents Berki from discussing the incident with journalists, friends, family and, apparently, police.
Could similar orders stop other women speaking about alleged abuse or seeking help? There is no evidence that other women have faced comparable injunctions. The order's wording has prompted scrutiny.
What Happened in 2015?
On 5 November 2026, a jury at Southwark Crown Court found Brand guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault against four women. The offences took place between 2004 and 2009. He was sentenced to 10 years and six months on 9 November. Those convictions do not prove Berki's separate allegations.
Berki told police in June 2014 that Brand had assaulted her at Goldsmith's home. Police took no further action. Brand and Goldsmith later brought a harassment claim after Berki contacted media outlets and posted online.
On 28 October 2015, Mr Justice Jay granted summary judgment against Berki and made a final injunction in Brand and Goldsmith v Berki [2015] EWHC 3373. Berki represented herself, though she had some legal help drafting her defence. No trial determined what happened during the 2014 visit.
Restrictions on Speaking
Tax Policy Associates published a copy of the injunction on 7 November 2026. Its analysis says the order goes beyond preventing harassment or direct contact. It restricts Berki from approaching or responding to journalists and disclosing information about it to friends and family.
The order also appears to restrict communication with police. It contains limited exceptions for certain legal and medical contacts. Tax Policy Associates says the named doctors and clinic no longer treat Berki, which may make the exceptions ineffective.
The order required Berki to pay £50,000 towards legal costs within two weeks. Tax Policy Associates says it also provided for bankruptcy proceedings if she failed to pay. These reported terms do not establish misconduct.
What Did the Court of Appeals Say?
On 3 September 2026, Lady Justice Falk refused Berki's application to reopen an earlier appeal decision. However, she acknowledged that the injunction 'on its face appears to prohibit' further communication with police and disclosures to treating doctors or therapists.
The judge said the appropriate route was an application to the High Court to amend the injunction. The order remains in force unless the High Court changes it.
Could Other Women Be Affected?
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 changed the law on certain non-disclosure agreements from 1 October 2025. It makes specified NDA terms unenforceable where they prevent victims from reporting crime or seeking certain support. These provisions concern agreements, not court injunctions, and do not automatically change Berki's 2015 order.
Tax Policy Associates has not established that other women have faced identical injunctions. Comparable cases require further court-record research.
The wider issue is whether injunctions intended to prevent harassment can be framed so broadly that they restrict access to support or reporting channels. Berki's case raises questions about proportionality, legal representation and judicial scrutiny, but does not prove a wider pattern.
The injunction can be challenged through the High Court. Until varied, it remains binding. Claims that other women have been silenced in the same way must be supported by evidence, not assumption.
The available evidence does not show how frequently courts make orders with similarly broad restrictions in other cases.
