CPS Annual Rape Scrutiny Report, October 2025

• 1. Foreword
• 2. Introduction
  • 2.1. What are rape scrutiny panels?
  • 2.2. How were these panels developed?
  • 2.3. How is learning from the panels shared?
  • 2.4. How is this report structured?
• 3. Insights from Rape Scrutiny Panels
  • 3.1. Case Strategy
    • 3.1.1. Taking a suspect-focused approach
    • 3.1.2. Written language in case files
    • 3.1.3. Coercive and controlling behaviour
    • 3.1.4. Intoxication and consent
    • 3.1.5. Previous sexual allegations
    • 3.1.6. Historic sexual offences
  • 3.2. Pre-Charge Stage
    • 3.2.1. Action Plans
    • 3.2.2. Third-party material
    • 3.2.3. Drafting indictments
    • 3.2.4. Charging by CPS Direct
  • 3.3. Post-Charge Stage
    • 3.3.1. Joint working with advocates
    • 3.3.2. Cases at court
    • 3.3.3. Impact of delayed trials
• 3.4. Support for Victims
  • 3.4.1. Victim engagement and support
  • 3.4.2. Victim communication letters
• 3.5. Supporting and Upskilling Prosecutors
  • 3.5.1. Welfare and wellbeing
  • 3.5.2. Sharing best practice
• 4. Conclusion and Next Steps
• Annex: Glossary

1. Foreword

Rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO) are devastating crimes that have a profound impact on victims, their families, and their communities. At the Crown Prosecution Service, we recognise the seriousness of these offences and the responsibility we bear in delivering justice through independent, fair and effective prosecutions.

We are continually working to improve our response to these crimes. As part of our new National Operating Model for Adult Rape Prosecution, we committed to holding regular rape scrutiny panels across our organisation. These meetings bring together prosecutors, police and external practitioners to examine rape cases and reflect on what we can learn from their outcomes. The panels are designed to support open, honest, and structured discussion - identifying effective approaches, inviting constructive challenge, and drawing out key insights to improve future casework.

The CPS is an organisation that prioritises continuous improvement, and we are proud to have a skilled and dedicated workforce that is committed to reflecting on best practice, listening to feedback, and improving how they work. This is why the National Operating Model also included a pledge to produce this Annual Rape Scrutiny Report - to draw together insights from rape scrutiny panels held across the country over the past year and examine them at a national level.

We will be sharing this report widely. Within the CPS, our network of RASSO Unit Heads will ensure that its insights are embedded across all Areas. We will also continue to work closely with our policing partners - through our Joint Rape Improvement Group, and wider criminal justice networks - to share learning and improve our collective response to rape. External stakeholders also play a vital role in shaping this response by raising questions and sharing feedback. We were pleased to welcome a range of sector partners to the CPS’s first National Rape Scrutiny Panel earlier this year, and we welcome their reflections on this report.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has made improving the prosecution of rape and serious sexual offences a personal priority. We know that there is more to do, and we are determined to build on the progress we have already made by continuing to strengthen our casework, support our people, and build public trust. Through reflection, collaboration, and a shared commitment to learning, we will work to drive change and deliver better outcomes for victims of rape.

Siobhan Blake
Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS West Midlands
CPS National Lead on Rape and Serious Sexual Offences

2. Introduction

2.1. What are rape scrutiny panels?

Within the Crown Prosecution Service, rape scrutiny panels are an important mechanism for reviewing actions, decisions, and communications in RASSO cases. By facilitating structured scrutiny of individual cases, these panels are able to identify concrete examples of both effective practice and areas for improvement. These insights can then be used to strengthen operational delivery, improve outcomes for victims, enhance joint working between agencies, and embed continuous learning across our organisation.

Local rape scrutiny panels are held quarterly within each CPS RASSO Unit across England and Wales. Each panel typically includes RASSO staff from the CPS and police, Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs), and representatives from the community and voluntary sector. By involving external participants, the panels help to strengthen transparency and accountability in criminal justice decision-making, and ensure that prosecution outcomes and policy development are informed by a diverse range of perspectives.

At each meeting, panellists will discuss at least two finalised cases from the local Area. These may be selected at random to provide an unbiased snapshot of current casework, or intentionally chosen to highlight particular issues or learning points. Panels often adopt a thematic focus - for example, cases that involved particular types of sexual offence or groups of victims, or that resulted in specific outcomes (such as convictions or acquittals).

In February 2025, the CPS also held its first National Rape Scrutiny Panel. Opened by the Director of Public Prosecutions, this meeting brought together representatives from the CPS, police, and third sector to review a selection of cases from different CPS Areas. It provided a national platform to reflect on emerging themes and facilitate open dialogue about the challenges facing rape prosecutions.

2.2. How were these panels developed?

Scrutiny panels are a well-established mechanism within the CPS for reviewing casework across a range of offence types. Within the specific context of rape and serious sexual offences, their format and focus has been shaped by Operation Soteria – a joint CPS-police programme underpinned by academic research, designed to develop new operating models for the investigation and prosecution of rape in England and Wales.

As part of Operation Soteria, the CPS piloted a series of scrutiny panels focused on rape cases that resulted in a ‘no further action’ (NFA) decisions. The academic evaluation found that these panels were widely regarded as valuable forums for learning and reflection. However, it highlighted the need for clearer guidance, more consistent case selection, and stronger mechanisms for capturing and cascading learning. It also concluded that these panels should extend beyond an exclusive focus on NFA outcomes.¹

These findings directly informed the development of the National Operating Model for Adult Rape Prosecution, which was launched in July 2023. As part of this model, the CPS committed to establishing quarterly local rape scrutiny panels in every Area, to be supported by standardised national guidance. This guidance was published in April 2024 – by spring 2025, all CPS Areas had commenced quarterly panels in line with the new format.

It should be noted that some CPS Areas are continuing to hold dedicated NFA rape scrutiny panels in collaboration with police colleagues, alongside the new local rape scrutiny panels. While this is not a requirement, several Areas have highlighted the operational value of maintaining a separate forum for focused scrutiny of NFA decisions.

2.3. How is learning from the panels shared?

Individual CPS Areas use a range of methods to share feedback and insights from rape scrutiny panels with local staff - including team briefings, newsletters, and podcasts. In the conclusion to this report, we note our intention to explore additional mechanisms to improve how discussions are captured and shared within local RASSO Units.

Minutes from local scrutiny rape panels are periodically shared and discussed at the quarterly National RASSO Unit Heads meeting. This process allows senior RASSO leaders to analyse the minutes, identify cross-cutting themes, and cascade learning back to their respective Areas. This document - our first Annual Rape Scrutiny Report - introduces a new way of supporting shared learning across our organisation on a national scale, by drawing together key insights from local panels held over the past year.

2.4. How is this report structured?

This report draws on the minutes of over forty Local Rape Scrutiny Panels held across all fourteen CPS Areas between April 2024 and July 2025. In total, more than a hundred individual RASSO cases were scrutinised at these panels.

Our policy analysts reviewed the minutes from each meeting and grouped key insights under recurring themes. The structure of the report reflects this analysis. Insights are organised under five core aspects of rape casework: (1) case strategy; (2) the pre-charge stage; (3) the post-charge stage; (4) support for victims; and (5) supporting and upskilling prosecutors. Each section then explores specific sub-topics in greater detail. Where relevant, this analysis is supported by anonymised case studies drawn directly from panel discussions.

The report’s conclusion reflects on the insights gathered through this year’s scrutiny activity and outlines how they will inform our next steps as an organisation - including the development of the new CPS Rape Action Plan, as well as our broader efforts to share and shape best practice in rape prosecutions across the criminal justice system.

Our aim is to make this inaugural report accessible to those outside the CPS - including third-sector partners, academics, and policy colleagues across government - as well as practically useful for prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals. We hope it serves as a valuable resource for supporting learning, informing local and national policy, and strengthening our collective response to rape and serious sexual offences.

3. Insights from Rape Scrutiny Panels

3.1. Case Strategy

3.1.1. Taking a suspect-focused approach

• Scrutiny panels frequently discussed whether a suspect-focused approach had been effectively applied in the cases they reviewed. The emphasis placed on this approach reflects its centrality to the new National Operating Model for Adult Rape Prosecution.
• In a number of cases, there was strong evidence that prosecutors had not only attended recent training on suspect-focused case strategy, but had absorbed its principles and were applying them with confidence. The benefits of a suspect-focused approach were most evident in cases where prosecutors successfully reframed elements that might traditionally have been seen as ‘weaknesses’ in a case.

CASE REFLECTION FROM SCRUTINY PANEL

In one case, the prosecution identified that the suspect had deliberately engineered the dynamics of the interaction so that the victim felt unable to refuse sexual activity. The suspect held a position of trust and authority and, within a relatively short period of time, he created a situation in which the victim felt emotionally vulnerable and socially pressured to comply with his advances.
The prosecution team recognised this behaviour as a form of grooming and placed it at the centre of their case strategy. Instead of scrutinising the victim’s actions, they focused on examining and contextualising the suspect’s behaviour – highlighting his deliberate intent and the calculated way he manipulated the situation. They also proactively addressed common societal assumptions in their case building, such as why the victim did not simply leave or say ‘no’.

The panel commended this approach as a clear example of suspect-focused practice. The way that the prosecution framed the suspect’s behaviour helped to build a strong and coherent narrative that resonated in court, and ultimately contributed to a conviction at trial.

• Panels also reviewed several cases where they felt that a suspect-centred approach was applied inconsistently. The majority of these involved ‘word-on-word’ allegations where there was limited corroborating evidence. In these cases, panellists observed that a disproportionate emphasis was sometimes placed on scrutinising the victim’s actions, while the suspect’s account was not sufficiently interrogated or contextualised.
• Panellists emphasised that, if a suspect-focused approach is to be successful, the prosecutor needs to proactively analyse the suspect’s behaviour and identify lines of inquiry that can expose predatory patterns or criminal intent. Where this approach was lacking, cases were more vulnerable to being NFA’d or encountering difficulties at trial due to evidential gaps or an undeveloped case narrative.

3.1.2. Written language in case files

• Several discussions highlighted the importance of prosecutors being mindful of the language they use in written case files. Panellists noted that imprecise phrasing can inadvertently reinforce societal assumptions or misconceptions about rape. They also observed that other criminal justice professionals will engage with these files during the life of the case, and the language that is used may influence the decisions they make.
• A recurring point of discussion was the use of ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’ as a framework for charging decisions. Although the Director’s Guidance on Charging instructs prosecutors to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of each case, some panellists felt that this approach was sometimes applied too rigidly, which could potentially lead to nuanced or complex issues being ‘flattened’ into binary categories.
• Some panellists suggested that RASSO prosecutors may benefit from further support to help them navigate communication about these crimes, given the well-established role of language in shaping societal assumptions and misconceptions in this area. One discussion cited recent joint research by the CPS and Equally Ours into effective communication about rape as a particularly useful resource.
• Panels also identified strong examples of good practice. Some reviewing lawyers showed a clear grasp of trauma-informed principles, using language that was both sensitive and precise. Others used their charging reviews as an opportunity to actively challenge assumptions or misconceptions, helping to lay the groundwork for a robust trial strategy.

3.1.3. Coercive and controlling behaviour

• Scrutiny panels noted a growing awareness and sophistication in how coercive and controlling behaviour (CCB) is understood, evidenced, and prosecuted across the CPS. A recurring theme in discussions was that CCB is now being recognised and charged in cases where it might once have been overlooked.
• Multiple panels highlighted that a charge of CCB can play an important role in capturing the full scope of the suspect’s behaviour and presenting a coherent narrative about the nature of their offending. In several cases, the inclusion of a CCB charge was seen as instrumental in securing a conviction. Conversely, in other cases, the absence of such a charge was viewed as a missed opportunity - particularly where it might have helped the jury to understand issues such as conditional consent or trauma responses.

CASE REFLECTION FROM SCRUTINY PANEL

When faced with a case involving repeated sexual violence within an abusive relationship, the prosecution team made CCB a central part of their case strategy – not just as a standalone charge, but as means for addressing assumptions about victim behaviour and framing the overall narrative of the case.

CCB was used to explain behaviours that jurors may otherwise have found difficult to understand, such as why the victim remained in the relationship and delayed reporting her experiences. It also helped the reviewing lawyer to proactively challenging common misconceptions about rape, including the belief that a victim must explicitly say ‘no’ to demonstrate a lack of consent.

The scrutiny panel praised this approach. By embedding CCB into the legal and evidential framing of the case, the prosecution team were able to present a clearer, more coherent picture of the relationship and the nature of the offending. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.

• Despite these positive examples, panels also acknowledged ongoing challenges in evidencing and charging CCB. In several cases, the withdrawal of the victim and/or a lack of corroborating evidence meant that a charge of CCB could not be pursued, even where the police and prosecution team strongly believed it was present in the relationship.
• These difficulties underscore the importance of early joint case planning with police colleagues and the involvement of specialist support services (such as ISVAs). Where these elements were in place, they were consistently cited as contributing to successful outcomes in cases that involved both rape and coercive control.

3.1.4. Intoxication and consent

• Several panels discussed how prosecutors engage with forensic experts in cases involving intoxication. They emphasised that it is important for prosecutors to be able to clearly articulate what forensic evidence they are seeking and why, so that the expert input can be targeted and relevant.
• However, these same discussions also highlighted that prosecutors can sometimes focus too heavily on trying to ‘prove’ a victim’s level of intoxication. In many cases, this forensic evidence will be unavailable or inconclusive. It is therefore crucial that any inquiries into the victim’s level of intoxication are accompanied by a clear and proactive examination of the suspect’s behaviour. In other words, rather than solely relying on proving victim incapacity, the case strategy could examine whether the suspect recognised the victim’s vulnerability and/or took steps to ensure clear and informed consent.
• More broadly, multiple panels observed that jurors may bring their own assumptions about alcohol use and tolerance levels into their deliberations, which can affect how they interpret a complainant’s vulnerability or credibility. Panellists emphasised that the prosecution should be alert to these dynamics and consider how to proactively address them through their case strategy and trial preparations.

3.1.5. Previous sexual allegations

• Several panels reviewed cases where the victim had previously made sexual allegations against other suspects, which were later withdrawn or did not result in a conviction. Panellists noted that this is not an uncommon occurrence (given the prevalence of sexual violence in society), and emphasised the importance of approaching previous disclosures with sensitivity and incorporating them a victim-centred case strategy.
• For example, multiple discussions highlighted that a history of withdrawn allegations can be a strong indicator of victim vulnerability. The victim may be at increased risk of being targeted by predatory sexual offenders or (in a domestic context) may be experiencing coercive and controlling behaviour. The existence of previous allegations should therefore prompt police and prosecutors to consider whether the victim requires more tailored support or safeguarding measures – and whether those earlier disclosures could be used to support a stronger, more nuanced case strategy.

3.1.6. Historic sexual offences

• Panellists observed that prosecution teams are increasingly handling cases involving historic sexual offences. They surmised that this is because more victims now feel able to come forward and report historic abuse, due to wider societal awareness and improved support for survivors.
• In their discussions, panellists highlighted that historic cases may present unique challenges for prosecution teams to overcome, such as difficulties in locating witnesses (due to the time that has passed since the alleged offence). They also noted that historic cases can take a particular emotional toll on victims.
• Panellists reflected that successful outcomes were most common when there had been close collaboration between police and prosecutors from the outset, thoughtful and consistent engagement with victims, and coordinated cross-agency efforts to ensure the case progressed through the justice system without unnecessary delays.

CASE REFLECTION FROM SCRUTINY PANEL

One case involved historic allegations of sexual assault by multiple victims. The defendant was ultimately convicted in relation to some complainants but acquitted in relation to others.

The panel particularly commended the prosecution team for securing a conviction in relation to a deceased victim. Because this victim had passed away, the prosecution made a hearsay application to allow the court to consider information that would normally have been given directly by the victim. This allowed the jury to take the victim’s experience into account, and led to a conviction.

The panel highlighted this as an example of good practice that demonstrated how prosecutors can use legal mechanisms to pursue justice for victims even in complex historic cases.

3.2. Pre-Charge Stage

3.2.1. Action Plans

• Panellists observed variation in the quality, effectiveness, and volume of the Action Plans they reviewed. The most effective examples were clear, proportionate, and tailored to the specific circumstances of the case. By contrast, others were described as being too generic, too broad, or as missing key investigative opportunities.
• Some cases involved multiple Action Plans, which contributed to delays in the pre-charge process. Panellists reflected felt that some of these cases could have benefitted from further exploration of key lines of inquiry before they were referred to the CPS. They highlighted the value of Early Advice conversations (as well as more informal dialogue between police and prosecutors) in strengthening the case-building process.
• In one panel, police attendees suggested that Action Plans are more helpful when they clearly explain the rationale behind each task. When prosecutors clearly set out an action’s intended outcome, it can help officers to consider alternative ways of achieving the same objective. For example, rather than simply instructing officers to obtain CCTV footage from a specific location, an Action Plan could explain that the aim of this request is to establish the suspect’s movements - which could prompt officers to explore other potential sources of evidence if that footage is unavailable.

3.2.2. Third-party material

• Panellists consistently emphasised the importance of keeping requests for third-party material proportionate and focused, especially when dealing with sensitive records such as counselling or social services files. A recurring theme was that any requests for third-party material should be guided by a clear case strategy.
• Several cases demonstrated how overly broad requests can lead to significant delays in charging decisions, due to the time required to process large volumes of material. A police panellist also highlighted that ‘staggered’ requests - where material is sought in successive batches - can compound these delays. It was suggested that prosecutors should aim to streamline the process by issuing requests simultaneously where possible.
• Panellists reflected that third party material was used most effectively in cases where, before making a request, prosecutors had clearly defined what material was needed and considered how it would be integrated into their case and trial strategy. This included preparing for scenarios where the requested material might undermine rather than support the prosecution’s narrative.

3.2.3. Drafting indictments

• Panels frequently discussed the drafting of indictments in individual cases, using this as an opportunity to explore how charging decisions are made and how they align with a broader case strategy. Panellists reflected that indictment drafting can be complex, and that prosecutors often need to balance two key aims: presenting a clear narrative for the jury, and ensuring that the charges accurately reflect the seriousness of the offending for sentencing purposes.
• In some cases, panellists expressed surprise at the inclusion or omission of particular charges, noting that the reasoning behind these decisions was not always clear. For example, in one case involving clear physical violence, no assault charge was brought alongside charges of rape. This may have been a deliberate choice by the reviewing lawyer, but their rationale was not recorded in the charging review.
• Panellists acknowledged that advocates often recommend keeping indictments as simple and streamlined as possible, to help juries understand the key issues in the case. However, they also noted that including additional charges can sometimes be beneficial. Charges of coercive and controlling behaviour were repeatedly highlighted as particularly valuable for conveying the full context of the offending and helping to explain the victim’s behaviour to a jury (see section 3.1.3).

3.2.4. Charging by CPS Direct

• Multiple panels reviewed cases that had initially been charged by CPS Direct (CPSD) under the Threshold Test. These are cases where the seriousness or circumstances of the case is thought to justify the making of an immediate charging decision, and there are substantial grounds to object to bail. Panellists noted that these cases highlighted the importance of having an out-of-hours charging service.
• In several scrutinised cases, a CPSD lawyer initially brought charges for domestic abuse, and an additional rape charge was only added when the local RASSO Unit reviewed the case under the Full Code Test. Panellists suggested that this may reflect the limited time and information available to CPSD when applying the Threshold Test - it was only when, in applying the Full Code Test, further outstanding reasonable lines of inquiry had been pursued, and lawyers were able to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for rape.
• Panellists highlighted that the fast pace of proceedings following a CPSD charging decision can make it more challenging to ensure the victim feels supported during the early stages of their case. For example, it may take time to connect the victim with ISVA services, which can leave them feeling confused in the interim. Panellists noted the value of developing informal communication routes that allow ISVA service managers to be notified when a case is charged via CPSD – so that support can be offered to victims as early as possible.
• Across multiple panels, there was a shared view that further research is needed to better understand CPSD’s growing role in rape cases, and the extent to which this is impacting victim experiences and case outcomes.

3.3. Post-Charge Stage

3.3.1. Joint working with advocates

• Across the panels, there was broad agreement on the value of closer collaboration between prosecutors and advocates. In several cases, panellists praised the reviewing lawyer for engaging proactively with advocates at an early stage to ensure a shared understanding of the case strategy and the rationale behind key investigative decisions. This alignment helped the advocate to deliver a clear and coherent narrative at trial.
• In other cases, this level of engagement had clearly not been possible due to delays in securing an advocate (often as a result of wider resourcing pressures). In such circumstances, panellists observed that reviewing lawyers were better placed to provide effective instruction at short notice if they had already documented a clear case strategy informed by a ‘think trial’ approach.

CASE REFLECTION FROM SCRUTINY PANEL

During a particularly complex case of familial rape, the prosecution advocate expressed the view that the case should be discontinued. In response, the reviewing lawyer convened an urgent case management panel with a senior manager to assess the situation. Following this discussion, the advocate was provided with clear instructions outlining why the Full Code Test had been met in this case and why it should therefore proceed.

Although the initial disagreement could have derailed the prosecution, the reviewing lawyer’s intervention helped re-establish a shared understanding of the case strategy. The advocate successfully challenged a submission by the defence to have the case dismissed, and the defendant was subsequently convicted on all counts. The panel reflected that the case was ultimately a positive example of how prosecutors and advocates can work together under pressure to uphold case strategy and secure a just outcome.

• Panellists also highlighted several instances where the advocate had been appointed in good time, but key aspects of the case still did not appear to be clearly conveyed at trial. They reflected on how communication and preparation processes might be strengthened. In one panel, local prosecutors noted that they are now routinely asking to review advocates’ opening notes, so as to support a shared understanding of how the case will be introduced and framed at trial.
• Panellists also discussed the role of Adverse Outcome Reports (AORs) in supporting learning and reflection following an unsuccessful prosecution. In several such cases reviewed by panels, no AOR had been produced. In others, the report summarised issues encountered at trial but did not explain how these had been addressed by the advocate or what lessons could be drawn. Several panellists expressed the view that, if AORs were completed more regularly and in a more consistent format, they could help strengthen future casework and support continuous improvement.

3.3.2. Cases at court

• In almost every scrutiny panel, the discussion explored how courtroom dynamics can influence the progression and outcome of a case. These reflections often focused on acquittals, where panellists considered whether a different approach could have led to a different outcome.
• Panellists frequently discussed how best to present information about rape and consent in the courtroom, in order to support jurors in making an impartial assessment of the evidence. In several cases, they observed that jurors appeared to have been influenced by societal misconceptions about rape. Panellists noted that such beliefs are widespread and can be deeply held – making them difficult to overturn.
• Panellists also discussed the challenges that jurors may face in understanding complex concepts such as ‘reasonable belief in consent’, conditional consent, coercive control, and trauma responses. They emphasised the importance of media literacy and public education, and expressed support for more ambitious national reforms to improve juror understanding. In parallel, they highlighted the value of joint working between reviewing lawyers and advocates to develop and deliver a clear trial narrative. Where this had been done, panellists felt it had clearly helped jurors to follow the ‘story’ of the case, understand the key issues, and make informed decisions.
• Panellists discussed a range of judicial practices, including rulings on special measures, the handling of late disclosure applications by the defence, and the use of judicial directions to support juror understanding. In several cases, they praised judges for taking proactive steps to ensure that societal misconceptions about rape did not compromise the integrity of the trial. In one notable example, the Judge issued bespoke directions instructing jurors not to rely on stereotypes about victim behaviour during their deliberations.² However, panellists also highlighted cases where they did not feel such proactive steps had been taken, and emphasised the benefits that could arise from greater consistency in judicial approaches.
• Several panellists noted that police and prosecutor training has evolved to reflect a more trauma-informed and evidence-led approach to rape and serious sexual offences. They suggested that there is now an opportunity to promote greater alignment across the justice system to support shared learning and consistent application of key principles. Panellists emphasised that this learning journey must be ‘end-to-end’ across the criminal justice system to deliver meaningful change for victims.

3.3.3. Impact of delayed trials

• The current backlog of cases in the Crown Courts is well established, with key contributing factors including reductions in court sitting days and shortages of qualified barristers. Scrutiny panels offered fresh insights into how these systemic delays affect victims, case outcomes, and broader public confidence in the justice process.
• Panellists repeatedly discussed the significant emotional toll that delays have on victims of rape, highlighting examples of re-traumatisation and mental health deterioration in the cases they reviewed. In several instances, panellists observed that repeated trial delays appeared to contribute directly to victims withdrawing from the prosecution.

CASE REFLECTION FROM SCRUTINY PANEL

In one case that had experienced repeated delays, the court was again unable to accommodate the trial and it was set to be re-adjourned. To avoid further delay, the Judge invited the Crown to reconsider an earlier offer of a guilty plea to a lesser charge. The prosecution ultimately accepted the plea, primarily out of concern for the victim’s mental health.

The panel acknowledged the rationale for this decision, and noted that both the Judge and the prosecution had prioritised the welfare of a vulnerable victim. However, they questioned whether the outcome fully aligned with the victim’s expectations of justice.

• Several panels stressed the importance of early and honest communication with victims about the likelihood of delays and the realities of the court process. It was also suggested that, when the prosecution believes that delays are likely to lead to victim attrition, there should be clear internal escalation routes within the CPS (as well as mechanisms to raise concerns with the courts) to ensure that such cases are prioritised where possible.

3.4. Support for Victims

3.4.1. Victim engagement and support

• Panels consistently highlighted the importance of early, consistent, and trauma-informed communication with victims. In several cases, it was clear that proactive engagement - especially when coordinated between police, CPS, and support services - had played an essential role in building trust with the victim and supporting them to remain engaged in the criminal justice process.
• Many panels discussed the challenges that vulnerable victims can face when giving evidence at trial. There were strong examples of special measures being used effectively to help victims give their best evidence - including live links, intermediaries, and pre-recorded cross-examination. However, in some cases, panellists felt that victims may have been pressured into using special measures they didn’t fully understand or want. In other cases, the absence of appropriate special measures - or the refusal of applications to request them - appeared to contribute to victims disengaging from the legal process.

CASE REFLECTION FROM SCRUTINY PANEL

In one case, four highly vulnerable victims were supported through a challenging prosecution. Throughout the process, the victims expressed reluctance to proceed and frequently changed their minds about attending court.

Rather than allowing the case to collapse, the police and prosecution (including lawyers, advocates, and paralegal officers) worked together to provide tailored support - offering reassurance, securing adjournments where necessary, and using creative solutions to build confidence.

For example, one victim initially refused any special measures. The reviewing lawyer suggested that she observe another trial from the public gallery to gain a better understanding of the process. Following this, the victim agreed to give her evidence via video link, which enabled her to give strong and clear testimony.

The defendant was ultimately convicted on multiple counts and received a long custodial sentence. The panel highlighted the case as a strong example of how persistence, flexibility, and a team-based approach can help victims stay engaged and secure justice in even the most complex cases.

• Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) were repeatedly praised for their unique role in providing wrap-around support and acting as a consistent point of contact. However, panellists noted that ISVA availability and referral pathways vary significantly across regions. This lack of consistency can lead to gaps in support and confusion about entitlement. Panels suggested that greater coordination and transparency around ISVA referral processes would help ensure that victims receive timely support.
• In several cases, it was unclear from the file whether victims had been offered ISVA support or special measures. Panellists stressed the importance of recording this information, both to ensure accountability and to support continuity of care.

3.4.2. Victim communication letters

• Across multiple panels, panellists repeatedly focused on letters sent to victims that explained CPS decisions or trial outcomes. They examined the structure, tone, and clarity of these letters, and emphasised that they play a central role in how victims experience and understand the legal process.
• Panellists noted that the CPS is actively working to improve the quality of letters sent to victims, both nationally and within individual Areas. In one panel, members observed that feedback they had provided in previous sessions had been passed on to local Victim Liaison Officers and had clearly influenced the tone and content of subsequent letters - demonstrating a direct link between scrutiny panels and continuous improvement.
• Letters that explained unsuccessful outcomes were praised when they used trauma-informed language, acknowledged the emotional impact of the decision, and encouraged victims not to be deterred from reporting in future.
• Improvements were also noted in the clarity of legal explanations, although some letters still used technical or formal language that panellists felt could be difficult for victims to understand. Panels highlighted the importance of continuing to refine the tone and accessibility of these communications - recognising that while national templates are helpful, each letter should be tailored to the needs of the individual victim.

3.5. Supporting and Upskilling Prosecutors

3.5.1. Welfare and wellbeing

• Several panels highlighted the importance of prioritising the welfare of prosecutors who routinely engage with distressing material in their RASSO casework. Discussions emphasised the potential for vicarious trauma to contribute to compassion fatigue and to influence decision-making – both at an individual level and across the wider culture of a RASSO Unit.
• It was repeatedly observed that, while regular clinical supervision is available for RASSO staff, it is offered on a voluntary basis and not every prosecutor accesses this support. Several panels reflected that more should be done within local Areas to promote the benefits of clinical supervision and encourage greater uptake across RASSO teams.

3.5.2. Sharing best practice

• Panellists discussed the value of creating more opportunities for CPS staff to share practical learning surrounding recurring challenges in RASSO prosecutions – particularly challenges that arise too infrequently to justify formal guidance, but often enough that prosecutors would benefit from understanding how their peers have approached similar situations.
• Facilitating informal knowledge exchange in these areas was seen as a way to strengthen consistency and confidence in decision-making within and across CPS Areas. Specific areas where panels noted that this could be particularly beneficial included: how to  overcome recurring forensic challenges; how to use different types of special measures to better support victims; how to address the needs of victims who have particular vulnerabilities; and how to manage rape prosecutions that intersect with other, non-VAWG offences.

4. Conclusion and Next Steps

The rape scrutiny panels held over the past year across the CPS have highlighted encouraging progress, but also persistent challenges. Their insights underscore the importance of embedding a suspect-focused, trauma-informed approach in our rape casework, and ensuring that our case strategies are clear, evidence-based, and grounded in sound analysis and legal reasoning.

These themes were echoed in the recent HMCPSI report on early advice and pre-charge decision-making in adult rape cases, which suggests that a coherent picture is emerging through both internal and external scrutiny mechanisms.

Our learning from this report will directly inform the development of our new Rape Action Plan for the CPS. This plan is structured around three key aims:

• providing enhanced oversight of our legal decision-making, to ensure that we are delivering high-quality casework and prioritising the safety of victims at every stage;
• supporting and upskilling our people; and,
• increasing public confidence in our ability to prosecute these offences effectively.

Specific insights from this report will contribute to individual workstreams within this plan. For example, the report will enhance our oversight by providing practical examples of ‘what works’ - from building strong cases, to preparing for trial, to providing consistent and tailored support for victims. These insights will help us to reinforce good practice across the organisation and support colleagues to apply it with confidence. Our aim is to ensure that every decision we make is robust, every prosecutor is supported, and every victim can have confidence in the justice process.

We also recognise the importance of ensuring that learning from scrutiny panels is carried through to the court room. Some areas lie within the CPS’s control – such as strengthening our joint working with advocates, and ensuring that we are presenting clear narratives to juries. Others will require collaboration with partners across the wider criminal justice system. We will continue to engage with cross-system forums to promote a shared understanding of best practice in rape prosecutions.

Finally, we are committed to continuously improving the way we deliver rape scrutiny panels. We will review our national guidance to help local Areas make the best use of these forums – with a particular focus on improving how discussions are captured and shared within local RASSO Units. Alongside this, we will explore new ways to share learning more rapidly and effectively at a national level (as a complement to this Annual Report). These steps will help ensure that reflections from individual panels inform national practice and continue to drive meaningful improvements. 

Annex: Glossary

• Action Plans: When the police refer a case to the CPS, prosecutors may send it back with an ‘action plan’ – a list of investigative tasks – if they think more work needs to be done by the police before a charging decision can be made.
• Advocate: An advocate is a legal professional who represents the CPS in court proceedings. Advocates are responsible for presenting the prosecution case, examining witnesses, making legal submissions, and following the case strategy set by the reviewing lawyer.
• AORs (Adverse Outcome Reports): When a RASSO case ends in a jury acquittal, the prosecution will usually request an ‘Adverse Outcome Report’ (AOR) from the advocate. The purpose of an AOR is to identify factors that may have contributed to the acquittal, and to highlight any learning points that could inform future casework. These documents are sometimes referred to as ‘Adverse Case Reports’ or ‘Acquittal Reports’.
• Assumptions and misconceptions: ‘Assumptions and misconceptions’ about rape and sexual violence are beliefs and attitudes that are commonly and persistently held across society, but may be factually inaccurate. They are sometimes described as ‘myths and stereotypes’.
• Case strategy: A structured approach to building a prosecution case. It should involve careful planning and analysis – identifying the key issues, anticipating challenges, and working closely with criminal justice partners to ensure that the case is ready for trial.
• Charging decision: The formal assessment of whether a suspect should be charged with an offence. This decision is made by a CPS prosecutor and must follow the principles set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This includes the Full Code Test and, in urgent cases, the Threshold Test.
  • The Full Code Test has two stages: (i) the evidential stage (is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction?); followed by (ii) the public interest stage (is a prosecution needed in the public interest?). The CPS will only start or continue a prosecution if a case has passed both stages.
  • In limited circumstances, where the Full Code Test is not met, the Threshold Test may be applied to authorise an immediate charging decision. The Threshold Test is most commonly used in high-risk safeguarding contexts, where the suspect must be charged to prevent their release from custody. The Full Code Test must be applied as soon as the necessary evidence becomes available.
• CPS Areas: The CPS operates across England and Wales, with fourteen regional teams prosecuting cases locally. Each of these fourteen CPS Areas is headed by a Chief Crown Prosecutor, and works closely with local police forces and other criminal justice partners.
• CPSD (CPS Direct): CPS Direct is the out-of-hours service for the CPS. CPSD lawyers typically deal with cases where the suspect cannot be released on bail because they pose a risk to the public, and an urgent charging decision (using the Threshold Test) therefore needs to be made outside of normal office hours.
• Director’s Guidance on Charging: A formal document issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out the procedures and standards that prosecutors must follow when making charging decisions.
• Early Advice: ‘Early Advice’ is strongly recommended in RASSO cases. This means that, at an early stage in the case, the police will consult a prosecutor on their investigative strategy and discuss the evidence they need to gather to build and strengthen the case. This helps police officers to focus the investigation on what is relevant and avoid unnecessary enquiries into what is not.
• Indictment: A formal written document that sets out the charges against a defendant for trial in the Crown Court.
• ISVAs (Independent Sexual Violence Advisers): Trained professionals who provide practical and emotional support to victims of sexual violence, and help them navigate the criminal justice process. They do not work for the police or CPS. Representatives from local ISVA Services often attend local rape scrutiny panels.
• Local rape scrutiny panels: Local rape scrutiny panels are quarterly meetings held within each CPS RASSO Unit across England and Wales. They bring together CPS and police staff, Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs), and community representatives to review and discuss individual rape cases. These panels aim to identify good practice and areas for improvement, strengthen transparency and accountability, and embed continuous learning across the organisation.
• NFA (No Further Action) decision: A decision that ‘no further action’ will be taken against a suspect, i.e. they will not be charged. An NFA decision may be made by the police (if they decide there is not enough evidence to refer the case to the CPS), or by the CPS (if they decide that the case does not pass the Full Code Test, and there is no further evidence the police could pursue that would change this).
• NOM: The National Operating Model (NOM) for Adult Rape Prosecution is a framework introduced by the CPS in July 2023. It sets out a standardised approach to the prosecution of adult rape cases across England and Wales. The NOM is now embedded as business-as-usual for RASSO prosecutors within the CPS. The police have also introduced their own National Operating Model for Adult Rape Investigation, and the two models are designed to complement each other.
• RASSO Unit: Each CPS Area has a specialist team that is responsible for prosecuting cases of rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO). Every RASSO Unit is led by a dedicated RASSO Unit Head, and staffed by prosecutors who are specifically trained to handle these complex cases.
• Reviewing lawyer: A reviewing lawyer is the CPS prosecutor responsible for assessing the evidence in a case, making a charging decision, leading on case strategy, providing instructions to advocates, and ensuring that the prosecution is conducted in line with CPS policies and legal standards.
• Special measures: Legal provisions that help vulnerable or intimidated victims and witnesses to give their best evidence in court. For example, the victim could sit behind a screen or curtain, give evidence from elsewhere via a live video link, or pre-record their evidence.
• Suspect-focused approach: A model for conducting RASSO investigations and prosecutions that focuses on the suspect’s behaviour, rather than placing an undue emphasis on the victim’s actions or choices. It involves examining the actions of the suspect - before, during, and after the alleged assault - and looking for patterns in their behaviour.
• Third party material: Information held by a person or organisation that is not directly involved in the investigation or prosecution of a case, but which may be relevant to it. This can include, for example, medical records held by a hospital, school records, or social services files. Such material may be requested by either the prosecution or the defence if it is believed to assist the case of the party requesting it or undermine the case of the other.
• ‘Word-on-word’ cases: A case where the evidence primarily consists of conflicting accounts from the complainant and the suspect as to what occurred, with little or no corroborating evidence (which means that the case hinges on one person’s word against the other).