Russell Brand’s charity for addiction and mental health support has been removed from the official register of charities following revelations about its closure amid ongoing sexual assault allegations. The Charity Commission confirmed that the Stay Free Foundation, established by the comedian after his recovery from heroin addiction in 2003, ceased operations and was officially deregistered in January.
Reports indicate that concerns regarding Brand’s behavior resurfaced after an investigation by Channel 4 Dispatches and The Sunday Times, which highlighted allegations from four women dating between 2006 and 2013. Brand has consistently denied the accusations, asserting that his relationships were consensual and characterizing the claims as part of a campaign to tarnish his reputation.
Additional inquiries into Brand’s past have uncovered instances during his tenure at the BBC. A complaint dating back to 2007 was reportedly re-raised in 2016, prompting internal reviews that led to further criticism of the broadcaster’s handling of such matters. A BBC review later found that some staff felt unable to express concerns about the presenter’s conduct while he held roles on BBC 6 Music and BBC Radio 2, prompting an apology from the network.
The Stay Free Foundation, which once focused on supporting individuals in recovery and aiding organizations that provide similar services, recorded an income of £126,130 and expenditures of £52,353 as of June 2023. The charity also benefited from profits donated through Brand’s Community festival, emphasizing its role in providing aid during his career in comedy and acting.
Authorities have taken the allegations seriously. The Crown Prosecution Service has stated that it is considering charges, and police reports indicate that multiple sexual offence complaints have been received. An unnamed man in his 40s was interviewed on several occasions under caution as part of the ongoing investigation.
Brand, who recently relocated to the United States, remains adamant in his denials, challenging the claims as unfounded and reflective of a wider effort by critics to undermine his contributions to discussions on addiction and recovery.
