In the year up to June 2024, more than 50% of victims in adult rape cases withdrew from the justice process before a suspect was even charged. Once a defendant is charged, withdrawal rates fall significantly, with approximately 8% of prosecutions being stopped post-charge because the victim no longer supported the case. The reasons for withdrawal are complex but commonly include systemic delays, lack of support, evidential challenges, and the fear of being cross-examined at trial – particularly where the defence may attempt to discredit the complainant.
On 2 December 2025, the justice secretary, David Lammy, announced the government’s intention to introduce new measures aimed at preventing what he described as the “profound injustice” faced by rape victims in the courtroom. The reforms were prompted by widespread reports of complainants leaving the system feeling as though they were on trial, with defence barristers scrutinising their past relationships, sexual behaviour, and experiences of abuse to undermine credibility.
What does the reform change?
Under the reforms, a complainant’s past sexual history or previous disclosures of sexual violence will generally no longer be admissible as “bad character” evidence, save in limited circumstances where the court is satisfied that such material is demonstrably relevant and of significant probative value. Defence teams will therefore be prevented from relying on unrelated histories of sexual abuse, prior allegations (even if unproven), or past trauma as a basis for arguing that the complainant is unreliable or a “serial liar.”
These changes form part of a broader effort to reduce trauma for victims and to refocus trials on the alleged wrongdoing rather than on the complainant’s personal history.
What does this mean for a defendant?
Whilst protecting complainants from unfair treatment is essential, the defendant’s right to a fair trial must remain intact. Rape cases frequently turn on the respective credibility of the complainant and the defendant. Limiting the defence’s ability to explore certain background material inevitably narrows the scope of cross-examination.
The reforms make it more difficult for defendants to rely on arguments that a complainant is dishonest simply because they have made previous reports of sexual abuse or disclosed unrelated trauma. The court will now focus more heavily on the evidence relating to this allegation, rather than allowing broader examinations of the complainant’s past. This does make it more challenging to prove their client’s innocence but not impossible.
How will we overcome these restrictions?
Credibility can still be challenged through legitimate and case-specific means. The reform restricts irrelevant or prejudicial avenues, not necessary forensic scrutiny.
Some avenues:
- Highlighting inconsistencies
Differences between ABE interviews, witness statements, communications, and evidence at trial can reveal inconsistencies or implausible timelines. These remain valid grounds for testing reliability.
- Focusing on objective evidence
The defence may rely on: CCTV, phone records, digital communications, DNA and forensic findings, third-party witness accounts.
Such evidence often plays a central role in undermining or contextualising the complainant’s version of events.
- Expert evidence
Where appropriate, experts may be used, for example, digital and cell site analysis, toxicology or forensic evidence and DNA analysis. The relevance and admissibility will depend on the facts of the individual case.
These are just three fundamental routes. In reality, there are many ways to fairly test credibility without straying into protected personal history.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that although the reforms may challenge defence practice, they do not compromise the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
As defence practitioners, we acknowledge measures designed to prevent humiliation or irrelevant attacks on complainants. However, it remains essential that defendants retain meaningful safeguards, particularly the ability to challenge credibility where it is fair, proportionate, and necessary.
Contact our Specialist Criminal Defence Lawyers
If you require any further advice or assistance, please contact us on 020 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form.