Now Russell Brand's been convicted of rape, we need to talk about Sylvie Berki. Because she can't speak for herself. In 2014, Ms Berki said she'd been assaulted by Russell Brand. But if she talks about it, even now, she risks jail.
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".
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.
How could this be granted? Because Ms Berki had no legal representation. Mr Brand had plenty. 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. The judge apparently relied on inconsistencies in Berki's changing account and his assessment of her motives. But how could he assess her credibility and motives, without hearing her evidence tested at trial? Particularly when she had no lawyer? buff.ly
And we can see this judicial approach in the previous judgment for an interim injunction against Ms Berki. Whether the allegations were true? Irrelevant. buff.ly
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?
This was basically a nasty legal trick. Brand initially threatened libel. But libel law almost never lets you get an interim injunction to silence someone. So Brand's lawyers turned it into a harassment claim. It would never have worked if Ms Berki had had a lawyer.
That judgment has more of Ms Berki's background. Judge for yourself if summary judgment, with no legal representation, was a reasonable outcome.
Ms Berki applied to the Court of Appeal but was turned down. The hearing was in secret. There is no published judgment or transcript. Again, she had no representation. (which is mad: at the Court of Appeal you are generally making points of law, and not easy ones) So what precisely did Ms Berki allege? There's little in the UK press. But there was extensive coverage in the Hungarian press: buff.ly
I don't know if her accusations are true. But I do know Ms Berki should be able to talk about it. A police refusal to prosecute should not result in state-imposed silence. 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... 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.
We only know about this case because Ms Berki was so outspoken at the time. ("harrasment") How many others are there? People silenced forever, with no representation, and no published judgments or court orders? I think we should be able to find out.