Convicted Without Evidence?

Russell Brand was just convicted in the UK of rape and sexual assault. The allegations went back decades to the late 1990s and 2000s. On November 5, 2026, a London jury found him guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault. The jury decided primarily from what women said under oath on the stand.

That is how criminal trials work in Canada, too. Evidence is people testifying. Physical evidence such as objects, text messages, videos, and medical records only back up - or poke holes in - their version of events. The physical evidence corroborates a witness' sworn testimony.

People are convicted exclusively on the sworn testimony – the words of a witness - every day.

People speaking under oath are the case

When a witness takes the stand, their words are the evidence. When a complainant, a police officer, or any person speaks in court, the judge or jury watches and listens during direct and cross-examination and later decides whether or not they have a reasonable doubt that the offence occurred.

That is why cross-examination matters so much. The defence challenges the story while everyone is watching. If the story falls apart, the Crown's case falls apart with it.

Physical Evidence Only Corroborates

A text message shows people were communicating. A photo shows a person or an injury or a room. A clinic note suggests someone went to a doctor. Those things matter. Defence lawyers fight hard over them.

But a photo of a text message does not prove the person typing it was actually the person named in the screenshot. A clinic note does not prove who injured the patient or the date the injury happened. A knife cannot say who held it and whether it was an act of self-defence.

If Physical Evidence Were Sufficient Evidence, Nobody Would Take the Stand

Here is the simple test: If objects alone could get someone convicted, prosecutors wouldn't drag people – including police officers - into court to testify. Prosecutors would just file the photos and medical reports with the court and the lawyers would make their argument.

But we don't do that. People testify under oath in court because the case depends on whether the judge or jury believes them. Words alone convict. In sexual assault cases, Canadian law even dictates that a conviction does not need other evidence to back up the complainant's account. The Crown still has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt but the absence of a text, a photo, or a DNA result does not end a prosecution.

Why this matters if you're charged

When the case rests on what someone says happened — especially years later — the fight is about the credibility and reliability of their story. Does the account stay consistent? Is it a detailed account? Does it match the texts, the photos, the timing? Has their memory been shaped by time, later events, or even by what other people said?

An experienced defence lawyer's job is to test that evidence vigorously and to put the Crown to its full burden. The best trial is where the cross-examination pokes so many holes in the witness' story that it falls apart like confetti. When that happens the accused doesn't even have to testify.

If you are facing a charge that turns on testimony alone, get advice early. Speak to a criminal defence lawyer before your first court appearance.