Silenced by Russell Brand and Jemima Goldsmith, therapeutic massage therapist who accused comic of assaulting her after being employed on his birthday
A massage therapist who accused Russell Brand of assaulting her has been silenced for a decade by a draconian gagging order that bans her from discussing her allegations with the police or even her own family.
The legal injunction against Szilvia Berki, unearthed for the first time yesterday, was last night branded ‘a gross breach of freedom of expression’ and sparked calls for a Commons inquiry.
After Brand’s convictions, Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said he ‘wouldn’t be surprised if many more’ victims came forward.
But yesterday it emerged that Ms Berki, 43, who reported Brand to Thames Valley Police in 2014, could be jailed for contempt of court if she repeated her claims to detectives.
Hungarian Ms Berki was hired by Brand’s then girlfriend, heiress Jemima Goldsmith, to massage him at her £15million mansion Kiddington Hall, near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, in June 2014.
Ms Berki agreed a fee of £500 for the session on Brand’s birthday. However, the massage never happened and Ms Berki made a complaint against the couple to police, saying ‘they’d treated her like a prostitute’.
She reportedly went to her local police station and said she was pushed by Brand and left terrified after Ms Goldsmith’s white Alsatian jumped at her.
Russell Brand with Jemima Goldsmith in 2013. Szilvia Berki was hired by Ms Goldsmith, Brand’s then girlfriend, to massage him at her £15 million mansion
Brand and Ms Goldsmith denied claims of wrongdoing and insisted they’d ordered a ‘standard’ rather than sexual massage. The police investigation was dropped. However, Ms Berki continued to post on social media about the incident.
In October 2015 Brand and Ms Goldsmith were granted an anti-harassment order, which also silenced Ms Berki for life.
This banned her from any communication ‘about’ Brand and Ms Goldsmith.
It stopped her from publishing or disclosing ‘any information’ to ‘any person’ about her visit to Ms Goldsmith’s home.
It also banned her from making ‘any allegation or insinuation’ that Brand or Ms Goldsmith ‘committed any criminal offence’ against her or ‘behaved towards her in a manner which may amount to a criminal offence’.
She would breach the order if she was to ‘make any approach to, or respond to, any enquiry from any journalist or media organisation in relation to the claimants or either of them’.
She was ordered to pay Brand and Ms Goldsmith’s £50,000 legal costs and the couple could launch bankruptcy procedures if she did not stump up.
Ms Berki has subsequently launched three unsuccessful attempts to appeal the order.
It is understood Ms Goldsmith has told Ms Berki she would agree to vary the injunction to allow her to contact police again.
To do so, however, appears to require Brand’s approval. Ms Goldsmith is understood not to have talked to him since 2014.
Media lawyer Mark Stephens called the order ‘a gross breach of freedom of expression’.
Dan Neidle, who worked for law firm Clifford Chance and uncovered the injunction, raised the prospect of MPs torpedoing the restrictions by asking Ms Berki to give evidence to a Commons select committee.
‘Witnesses to Parliamentary committees have absolute parliamentary immunity,’ he said.
