A £500 birthday massage arranged for Russell Brand by his then-girlfriend Jemima Goldsmith developed into a police investigation, competing allegations of misconduct and a lengthy legal battle that ultimately prevented the masseuse involved from discussing the incident publicly.
The events, which took place in 2014 and 2015, have returned to public attention following renewed scrutiny of Brand’s legal battles and his conviction for rape and sexual assault offences.
At the centre of the dispute was Hungarian masseuse Szilvia Berki, who alleged that she was physically mistreated during a visit to Goldsmith’s Cotswolds property.
Brand and Goldsmith have consistently denied her allegations.
The case also resulted in a High Court injunction that prohibited Berki from discussing her experience with almost anyone, including the police.
Goldsmith Arranged the £500 Massage
The arrangement began on June 6, 2014, when Berki received an email from Goldsmith asking whether she could travel to Oxfordshire the following evening to provide a massage for a male client.
At the time, Berki advertised her massage services on several online platforms, including Gumtree and Wahanda.
On her personal website, she described herself as a full-figured, curvy woman in her late twenties.
Goldsmith agreed to pay her £500 for the appointment.
A car and driver were arranged to collect the masseuse from her home in Wimbledon, south-west London, and return her after the session.
The massage was intended as a birthday present for Brand, who had turned 39 earlier that week.
According to a source familiar with the arrangement, Goldsmith had searched online for a local outcall massage service but eventually contacted Berki because other therapists were unavailable.
There was no suggestion that the arrangement involved anything beyond a standard massage.
Berki subsequently denied being a sex worker, explaining in an interview that she routinely rejected clients who requested sexual services.
The Visit to Goldsmith’s Cotswolds Mansion
On June 7, 2014, Berki arrived at Kiddington Hall, a nine-bedroom, 17th-century property in the Cotswolds.
She later recalled that Goldsmith personally welcomed her outside the property.
According to Berki, the socialite was friendly and asked whether she was German because of her accent.
However, the atmosphere reportedly changed when Berki was introduced to Brand.
Brand apparently decided that he did not want the massage and asked her to leave.
Berki took offence, and an uncomfortable exchange followed.
The two sides subsequently offered different accounts of what happened.
Berki alleged that Brand pushed her in the back as she walked down a staircase while leaving the property.
She also claimed that Goldsmith’s white Alsatian, Brian, attacked her by jumping on her and licking her face.
She maintained that CCTV footage supported her account of the incident.
Brand and Goldsmith rejected the allegations, insisting that no physical contact occurred. They maintained that Brand simply asked the masseuse to leave.
Goldsmith later said she had been present throughout the encounter and witnessed nothing inappropriate.
She described the CCTV footage as showing her energetic but non-aggressive dog jumping up.
The driver subsequently took Berki home, approximately 30 minutes after she had arrived.
Goldsmith later emailed the masseuse to apologise for any misunderstanding, while the agreed £500 payment was transferred the following Monday.
Masseuse Reported the Incident to Police
Despite receiving payment, Berki remained unhappy about the encounter and eventually contacted the Metropolitan Police to report an alleged assault.
The complaint was transferred to Thames Valley Police, who opened an investigation into an alleged assault near Woodstock on June 7.
Before making the police report, Berki had also contacted several newspapers, seeking to publicise her allegations.
She additionally sent an email to UNICEF, where Goldsmith served as a UK ambassador, containing several allegations about the incident, including claims of serious criminal misconduct.
Brand responded by instructing solicitors to write to Berki, demanding an apology, damages and legal costs over what he considered defamatory allegations.
He and Goldsmith also engaged the law firm Archerfield Partners to prevent the story from being published.
Several media organisations, including the Daily Mail, received legal letters warning against reporting the allegations.
The police investigation concluded on July 25, 2014, with detectives deciding that no further action would be taken.
Berki subsequently filed a professional standards complaint against the police, accusing officers of corruption. The complaint was later dismissed.
She also continued contacting newspapers and launched a Change.org petition containing criticism of Brand and Goldsmith.
Legal Threats and the First Court Injunction
In early August 2014, The Daily Telegraph reported that Berki’s allegations had prompted a police investigation.
The publication was followed by further correspondence from Brand and Goldsmith’s legal representatives.
In a letter dated August 2, their lawyers argued that there was no public interest in publishing Berki’s allegations, describing them as inaccurate and defamatory.
The letter also accused the masseuse of engaging in conduct intended to harass the couple.
On August 12, 2014, Brand and Goldsmith obtained an emergency High Court injunction against Berki on grounds of harassment involving what were described as extremely private and sensitive matters.
The restriction prevented her from speaking publicly about the incident.
The injunction was extended the following month before becoming permanent in October 2015.
The Permanent Injunction That Prevented Her From Speaking
The final ruling was delivered through a summary judgment, meaning the case did not proceed to a full trial.
The judge concluded that Berki had harassed the couple and made inconsistent allegations, alongside what the court described as extremely unsavoury threats.
The judgment also found that she had no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the case if it proceeded to trial.
Berki, who represented herself during the proceedings, was ordered to pay £50,000 in legal costs.
The couple were also given the option of pursuing bankruptcy proceedings if she failed to pay.
The injunction went beyond preventing direct contact with Brand and Goldsmith.
It specifically prohibited Berki from discussing the events at Kiddington Hall with almost anyone, except certain named medical professionals and solicitors involved in the proceedings.
She was also prohibited from making allegations or insinuations that either Brand or Goldsmith had committed a criminal offence against her or behaved towards her in a way that could constitute a criminal offence.
The restrictions effectively prevented her from discussing the incident with friends, family members and police officers.
Renewed Questions Over the Court Order
More than a decade later, the injunction has attracted renewed criticism.
Campaigner Dan Neidle highlighted the case in a blog post that gained widespread attention, questioning whether the restrictions imposed on Berki were necessary or proportionate.
He argued that the order had prevented her from making further complaints to the police or discussing her experience privately.
Neidle also highlighted the contradiction between encouraging other alleged victims of Brand to come forward and maintaining an injunction that prevented Berki from speaking to investigators.
Media lawyer Mark Stephens described the restriction as a gross breach of freedom of expression.
Berki recently attempted to challenge the ruling with the assistance of a barrister.
However, a Court of Appeal judge rejected her application.
The case has since prompted calls for MPs to invite Berki to give evidence before a parliamentary select committee, where parliamentary privilege could protect her from legal restrictions on what she says.
Goldsmith Breaks Her Silence About Brand
The renewed attention surrounding the case coincided with a lengthy social media statement published by Goldsmith on Monday.
Her intervention followed Brand’s sentencing to 10 years and six months in prison after his conviction for raping one woman and sexually assaulting three others in offences dating back to the 2000s.
Goldsmith said she wanted to correct what she described as misleading reports and speculation about her involvement in the dispute with Berki.
In her statement, she revealed that her relationship with Brand had ended under circumstances different from what had previously been reported.
Although the couple had dated between 2013 and 2014, their separation had generally been understood to have been amicable.
Goldsmith disclosed that she had actually called the police in 2014 to have Brand removed from her home following a violent incident.
She said she decided not to press charges or speak publicly about what happened because she was concerned about the impact of media attention on her teenage children at the time.
She also revealed that she had assisted journalists investigating Brand’s alleged behaviour towards women.
According to Goldsmith, she had agreed to testify in court about his abusive behaviour if the newspaper publishing accounts from his alleged victims faced legal action.
Channel 4 Journalist Confirms Goldsmith’s Involvement
Goldsmith’s account was subsequently supported by Dorothy Byrne, the former head of news and current affairs at Channel 4, who was involved in the 2023 Dispatches documentary examining allegations against Brand.
Byrne confirmed that Goldsmith had contacted her about Brand based on her own experiences.
She said Goldsmith had alerted her because she believed Brand posed a danger to other women and needed to be exposed.
The confirmation provided further details about Goldsmith’s involvement in the reporting that eventually brought Brand’s alleged behaviour into wider public attention.
Goldsmith Publishes Messages Allegedly Sent by Berki
In her statement, Goldsmith also addressed her interactions with Berki following the massage appointment.
She shared examples of messages that the masseuse allegedly sent her, including statements that Goldsmith interpreted as threatening.
One message reportedly read: “Happy birthday (Jemima). I hope you have more. In other words I hope you don’t die this year.”
Other messages contained anti-Semitic language directed at Goldsmith, who has Jewish heritage.
One allegedly referred to what the sender described as a Jewish dictatorship in Britain, while another accused Jewish people of controlling organisations.
A friend of Goldsmith said the messages provided important context about the harassment she had experienced and explained her concerns about personal safety.
Questions Emerge Over Goldsmith’s Account of the Police Investigation
Despite her detailed statement, aspects of Goldsmith’s explanation have raised questions about how the events were previously documented.
In one section, she claimed that, according to the police, Berki had never told officers that she had been assaulted, threatened or falsely imprisoned.
However, the judgment in the harassment proceedings contains a different account.
It states that, according to information disclosed by the police, Berki reported that Brand had assaulted her during her visit to the property.
There was also an apparent discrepancy concerning Goldsmith’s relationship with Brand when the couple sought the injunction.
Goldsmith said she was no longer in contact with the comedian at the time and had simply agreed to a harassment order proposed by his lawyer.
However, a judgment issued the day after the September 2014 hearing stated that Brand and Goldsmith had remained in a personal relationship throughout the relevant period.
Goldsmith Says She Wants the Injunction Changed
Goldsmith, who married Irish-Australian financier Cameron O’Reilly in September, has now indicated that she is willing to support changes to the injunction.
She said she would agree to varying the order to allow Berki to discuss her experience with the police and potentially the media.
A friend of Goldsmith said she had been attempting to have the restrictions changed for almost a year.
However, the process reportedly requires Brand’s agreement, and his legal representatives have yet to respond.
The situation leaves Berki unable to speak freely about the 2014 encounter despite renewed calls for people with allegations against Brand to come forward.
Whether the controversial injunction will eventually be altered remains uncertain.
