The key takeaways from Russell Brand's trial as jurors consider their verdict

The jury in the Russell Brand trial is considering seven charges, including three counts of rape.

The prosecution argues he was a ruthless sexual predator, while the key defence argument is that all Mr Brand's sexual encounters were consensual.

The jury has been told to take its time, with jurors told they will not be criticised for taking too long to reach a verdict.

The jury in the rape and sexual assault trial of comedian Russell Brand has begun its deliberations in London, after hearing more than three weeks of evidence.

Presiding judge Justice Joel Bennathan says consent is the "million-dollar question".

Here is the evidence that has been heard and what the jury is considering.

The 51-year-old is facing seven charges: three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted indecent assault, against six women.

Mr Brand has denied all charges and has repeatedly told the jury he has never had non-consensual sex.

The incidents are alleged to have occurred between 1999, when Mr Brand was 24 years old, and 2009.

The women allege the comedian suddenly turned on them after initially appearing charming and forced them into sexual activity in locations including a toilet, a hotel room, workplace hallways and his bedroom.

Some of the women said Mr Brand would then behave as though nothing had happened.

Throughout the trial, Mr Brand arrived at court most days holding the hand of his wife of nine years, Laura.

The comedian, who converted to Christianity months after the allegations surfaced (the jury heard he was baptised in London's River Thames), would often tell waiting media he felt "blessed" and he hoped the court process would lead to "good outcomes for everybody involved".

The prosecution told the jury Mr Brand was a ruthless, calculated and manipulative sexual predator.

Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC argued the fact that six women who did not know each other had all come forward with similar allegations was "beyond coincidence".

The six women had not "sought the limelight" and "had nothing to gain, other than perhaps some closure" and were not after financial compensation, Ms Karmy-Jones said.

One woman gave evidence that Mr Brand did not listen when she said no — "He didn't stop, he didn't care, pulling, pushing … thrusting," the prosecutor said — while he allegedly raped her at his London home.

"In the rape cases, he kept on going until he achieved his ultimate aim," Ms Karmy-Jones told the court.

She said Mr Brand saw the woman as "just a hole, just another number to add to his 5,000 notches", after the court heard Mr Brand once boasted to a friend about his ambition to sleep with 5,000 women.

Speaking to the jury, the prosecutor said while Mr Brand "may now treat women with kindness and respect" and "may now have a different view of consent", they needed to consider what the now 51-year-old was like when the alleged offending occurred, up to 25 years ago.

The key defence argument is that all Mr Brand's sexual encounters were consensual.

The defence also argues there is a link between the six women and the 2023 UK Channel 4 UK Dispatches documentary Russell Brand: In Plain Sight, which aired allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr Brand and led to his arrest.

Defence barrister Ian Winter KC insists the program encouraged some of the women to "rewrite their history with Mr Brand" and "corrupted their memories" of what took place.

He repeatedly asked the jury why there are "only three rape allegations" when Mr Brand had sex with "many, many women".

"How is it that [none of these allegations] came to light during [the] MeToo [movement]?" he asked during his closing submissions.

Speaking about the 2023 documentary, Mr Winter told the jury the accusers "needed to be told things in the program to make the jump".

The defence also urged the jury to separate the comedian's treatment of women from the question of whether he committed the alleged crimes.

"It is, I am afraid, lawful to be unkind while having sex or after having sex," he said.

"It is, I am afraid, lawful to be disrespectful or rude or to behave like a crazy idiot. It is lawful unless, and until it becomes, non-consensual."

Mr Brand was in the witness box for more than four hours.

He told jurors he had an "obsession" with sex and promiscuity and said he wrongly used his fame to gain sexual access to women.

"As I became more successful and famous I was very comfortable allowing that to facilitate sexual access, which I agree with you was wrong," he said.

Mr Brand maintained that the sexual encounters at the centre of the charges were consensual, telling the jury "consent is more important than sex itself".

The jury also heard about the effect the allegations had on Mr Brand.

He described the past few years as "deeply traumatic", saying the allegations had consumed his life and taken a toll on his personal relationships and his health.

Mr Brand also told the court he had been unable to convince anyone to give evidence in his defence, other than his wife and two ex-girlfriends.

His wife gave evidence and said Mr Brand's promiscuity had left her "heartbroken", while his ex-girlfriends gave witness statements that said he never engaged in an intimate act with them without their consent.

When he was asked by his barrister whether anyone would now be "willing to touch [him] with a barge pole" he replied: "No."

After hearing more than three weeks of evidence, the jury has retired to consider its verdicts on seven charges. These include rape, sexual assault and attempted indecent assault.

Justice Bennathan told the jurors to consider each charge carefully and return a unanimous verdict.

The big issue at the heart of this case is consent.

Mr Brand has acknowledged having sexual relations with some of his accusers, at times recounting them in graphic detail from the witness box. But he insists every encounter was consensual.

It will be up to the jury to decide whether they believe his evidence.

The jurors were told they were not restricted by time and no jury could be criticised for taking too long to reach a verdict, or for returning too quickly.