*/
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Violence against women and girls (VAWG) is changing fast. Technology now gives perpetrators new ways to target and control victims, from tracking apps and GPS devices to cyberflashing and intimate deepfakes that can haunt victims long after the abuse itself.
Across the criminal justice system, we cannot let offenders develop new methods to inflict harm without adapting to their changes, overcoming new barriers and keeping victims at the heart of what we do. That was the driving force behind the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS’s) five‑year action plan to tackle VAWG, launched in November 2025.
At the launch, we shared data showing the layered nature of abuse and how closely VAWG offences overlap. The connections are impossible to ignore:
These offences rarely sit in isolation. They form part of sophisticated patterns, layers of violence, control and coercion that build and intensify over time. Our job, collectively, is to ensure juries see those patterns clearly.
Prosecuting VAWG demands a deeper grasp of how these behaviours interact. That applies both to CPS prosecutors and the self-employed Bar. Recognising coercive dynamics, understanding how trauma shapes memory and presentation, and challenging ingrained misconceptions are no longer ‘nice to have’ skills. CPS training now centres on real case studies, designed to help prosecutors spot patterns early, avoid outdated assumptions, and understand how victims may appear and communicate in court.
We are also learning from joint work with experts, including our first national scrutiny panel on ‘honour’-based abuse. Bringing together police, prosecutors and specialist practitioners has helped us see where signs of abuse could have been identified sooner. These lessons will feed directly into future guidance, training and joint CPS-National Police Chief Council protocols on stalking and ‘honour’‑based abuse. It is vital that advocates across the Bar feel the benefit of this work too.
We have also been strengthening our understanding of how rape and sexual offending are perceived by the public. Our research partnership with Equally Ours has been especially valuable, offering one of the clearest pictures to date of the harmful assumptions and misconceptions shaping attitudes towards rape. The study, which involved expert interviews, discourse analysis, focus groups and a nationally representative survey of over 3,000 people, confirmed that despite progress, false beliefs about rape continue to dominate public understanding.
Fewer than half of respondents could correctly identify common truths about rape, with roughly 4 in 10 recognising that most rapists know their victims, just over a quarter understood that victims may not appear visibly distressed when recounting what happened, about 17% were aware that most offenders do not use physical violence and only about a third correctly understood that false allegations are rare.
These misconceptions were more pronounced among 18-24‑year‑olds, who were consistently more likely to endorse harmful assumptions and demonstrated marked confusion about consent.
Nearly half did not understand the legal meaning of ‘reasonable belief in consent’, and only 28% recognised that agreeing to meet someone online does not imply consent to sex. Perhaps most importantly for those preparing and presenting cases, the research showed how powerfully understanding shifts when rape is explained using clear, suspect‑centric messaging. When the public was exposed to reframed, evidence‑grounded narratives emphasising that rape is typically a deliberate choice made by offenders and that trauma affects how victims behave and recall events, understanding increased by up to 22%. These insights are directly relevant to courtroom practice: they underscore the importance of advocates confidently challenging harmful assumptions, explaining trauma‑related responses, and helping juries to see the full context of offending, rather than relying on outdated assumptions.
For example, the research showed that participants initially stated victims of rape were not responsible, but participants then rapidly contradicted themselves when talking about their beliefs. This sense of blame was particularly strong in relation to intoxicated women. Many focus group participants said young women who were drunk or under the influence of drugs were more likely to be raped because they were ‘particularly vulnerable’ or could even be targeted by rapists.
The research found that by referencing misinformation, even to refute it, fails to counter its power, and can increase its dominance with repetition. This means you should stick to rape facts and truths in the affirmative, rather than countering the misconception.
This reframing can be applied when opening or closing a case. For example, avoiding: ‘Just because the Complainant has not given a consistent account does not necessarily mean that the Complainant’s evidence is untrue.’ Instead, reframing as: ‘Everyone reacts differently to trauma – there’s no script. A person’s memory may be affected in different ways. And it may affect that person’s ability to take in and later recall the experience.’
If you must address a misconception, use the ‘truth sandwich’. Start with the truth, indicate the misconception very briefly (rather than repeating and therefore reinforcing it), then repeat the truth once more, providing contextual information that reinforces the truth.
That victim‑focused, suspect‑centric approach sits at the centre of our strategy. Trauma, fear and ongoing risk shape how a victim engages with the process. If we overlook that at any stage we risk losing cases that should and could be prosecuted.
This starts from the moment a case arrives. We encourage prosecutors to apply a ‘VAWG lens’ straight away: looking for the wider context, understanding the pattern and drawing the connections that give the full picture of the suspect’s behaviour. When suspect and victim are known to one another, scrutinising context is vital in understanding culpability and intention; consider an offender’s behaviour during and after the offence, look for patterns of abusive or coercive behaviour, and at previous convictions or allegations. Abusers often exert greater levels of control over victims known to them, which means victims can face barriers to supporting a prosecution, including fear, intimidation, shame and trauma. By unpacking and embedding the full context early, we strengthen cases and reduce the risk of them collapsing if a victim cannot continue to support the prosecution.
Supporting victims also requires practical action. Pre‑trial meetings, early applications for special measures and thoughtful preparation can make a real difference. All advocates have a key role in creating a court environment where vulnerable or intimidated victims can give their best evidence.
In evidence‑led cases, where the victim is unable or unwilling to support the prosecution, professional curiosity becomes critical. Every piece of evidence matters. Body‑worn video, 999 calls, digital material and witness accounts can all help build a clear, compelling picture of offending. When we look beyond the initial account and dig deeper into the context, we often find what we need to secure justice.
All advocates, inside and outside the CPS, can help shape stronger prosecutions and more informed jury deliberations by:
As these insights become widely adopted, we will see more consistent casework, stronger prosecutorial decision‑making and a justice process that truly reflects victims’ experiences. A deeper, shared understanding of the intersecting nature of VAWG will lead to better outcomes for victims and swifter justice.
Violence against women and girls (VAWG) is changing fast. Technology now gives perpetrators new ways to target and control victims, from tracking apps and GPS devices to cyberflashing and intimate deepfakes that can haunt victims long after the abuse itself.
Across the criminal justice system, we cannot let offenders develop new methods to inflict harm without adapting to their changes, overcoming new barriers and keeping victims at the heart of what we do. That was the driving force behind the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS’s) five‑year action plan to tackle VAWG, launched in November 2025.
At the launch, we shared data showing the layered nature of abuse and how closely VAWG offences overlap. The connections are impossible to ignore:
These offences rarely sit in isolation. They form part of sophisticated patterns, layers of violence, control and coercion that build and intensify over time. Our job, collectively, is to ensure juries see those patterns clearly.
Prosecuting VAWG demands a deeper grasp of how these behaviours interact. That applies both to CPS prosecutors and the self-employed Bar. Recognising coercive dynamics, understanding how trauma shapes memory and presentation, and challenging ingrained misconceptions are no longer ‘nice to have’ skills. CPS training now centres on real case studies, designed to help prosecutors spot patterns early, avoid outdated assumptions, and understand how victims may appear and communicate in court.
We are also learning from joint work with experts, including our first national scrutiny panel on ‘honour’-based abuse. Bringing together police, prosecutors and specialist practitioners has helped us see where signs of abuse could have been identified sooner. These lessons will feed directly into future guidance, training and joint CPS-National Police Chief Council protocols on stalking and ‘honour’‑based abuse. It is vital that advocates across the Bar feel the benefit of this work too.
We have also been strengthening our understanding of how rape and sexual offending are perceived by the public. Our research partnership with Equally Ours has been especially valuable, offering one of the clearest pictures to date of the harmful assumptions and misconceptions shaping attitudes towards rape. The study, which involved expert interviews, discourse analysis, focus groups and a nationally representative survey of over 3,000 people, confirmed that despite progress, false beliefs about rape continue to dominate public understanding.
Fewer than half of respondents could correctly identify common truths about rape, with roughly 4 in 10 recognising that most rapists know their victims, just over a quarter understood that victims may not appear visibly distressed when recounting what happened, about 17% were aware that most offenders do not use physical violence and only about a third correctly understood that false allegations are rare.
These misconceptions were more pronounced among 18-24‑year‑olds, who were consistently more likely to endorse harmful assumptions and demonstrated marked confusion about consent.
Nearly half did not understand the legal meaning of ‘reasonable belief in consent’, and only 28% recognised that agreeing to meet someone online does not imply consent to sex. Perhaps most importantly for those preparing and presenting cases, the research showed how powerfully understanding shifts when rape is explained using clear, suspect‑centric messaging. When the public was exposed to reframed, evidence‑grounded narratives emphasising that rape is typically a deliberate choice made by offenders and that trauma affects how victims behave and recall events, understanding increased by up to 22%. These insights are directly relevant to courtroom practice: they underscore the importance of advocates confidently challenging harmful assumptions, explaining trauma‑related responses, and helping juries to see the full context of offending, rather than relying on outdated assumptions.
For example, the research showed that participants initially stated victims of rape were not responsible, but participants then rapidly contradicted themselves when talking about their beliefs. This sense of blame was particularly strong in relation to intoxicated women. Many focus group participants said young women who were drunk or under the influence of drugs were more likely to be raped because they were ‘particularly vulnerable’ or could even be targeted by rapists.
The research found that by referencing misinformation, even to refute it, fails to counter its power, and can increase its dominance with repetition. This means you should stick to rape facts and truths in the affirmative, rather than countering the misconception.
This reframing can be applied when opening or closing a case. For example, avoiding: ‘Just because the Complainant has not given a consistent account does not necessarily mean that the Complainant’s evidence is untrue.’ Instead, reframing as: ‘Everyone reacts differently to trauma – there’s no script. A person’s memory may be affected in different ways. And it may affect that person’s ability to take in and later recall the experience.’
If you must address a misconception, use the ‘truth sandwich’. Start with the truth, indicate the misconception very briefly (rather than repeating and therefore reinforcing it), then repeat the truth once more, providing contextual information that reinforces the truth.
That victim‑focused, suspect‑centric approach sits at the centre of our strategy. Trauma, fear and ongoing risk shape how a victim engages with the process. If we overlook that at any stage we risk losing cases that should and could be prosecuted.
This starts from the moment a case arrives. We encourage prosecutors to apply a ‘VAWG lens’ straight away: looking for the wider context, understanding the pattern and drawing the connections that give the full picture of the suspect’s behaviour. When suspect and victim are known to one another, scrutinising context is vital in understanding culpability and intention; consider an offender’s behaviour during and after the offence, look for patterns of abusive or coercive behaviour, and at previous convictions or allegations. Abusers often exert greater levels of control over victims known to them, which means victims can face barriers to supporting a prosecution, including fear, intimidation, shame and trauma. By unpacking and embedding the full context early, we strengthen cases and reduce the risk of them collapsing if a victim cannot continue to support the prosecution.
Supporting victims also requires practical action. Pre‑trial meetings, early applications for special measures and thoughtful preparation can make a real difference. All advocates have a key role in creating a court environment where vulnerable or intimidated victims can give their best evidence.
In evidence‑led cases, where the victim is unable or unwilling to support the prosecution, professional curiosity becomes critical. Every piece of evidence matters. Body‑worn video, 999 calls, digital material and witness accounts can all help build a clear, compelling picture of offending. When we look beyond the initial account and dig deeper into the context, we often find what we need to secure justice.
All advocates, inside and outside the CPS, can help shape stronger prosecutions and more informed jury deliberations by:
As these insights become widely adopted, we will see more consistent casework, stronger prosecutorial decision‑making and a justice process that truly reflects victims’ experiences. A deeper, shared understanding of the intersecting nature of VAWG will lead to better outcomes for victims and swifter justice.
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Far-ranging month for the Chair of the Bar
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the most recent data on alcohol misuse in the UK, and the implications for alcohol testing in family proceedings
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how tailored financial planning can help barristers take control of their finances and plan with confidence
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
In this wide-ranging interview, Professor Jo Delahunty KC, Family Law KC of the Year, talks to Anthony Inglese CB about the values that shaped her, the moment she found her vocation and, in an intensely personal call to arms, why time is running out for the legal aid Bar
Is the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office process fit for purpose? Women barristers’ experiences of bullying are not being reported or, if they are, they are not making it through the system, says Tana Adkin KC
Thomas Roe KC and Andrew O’Kola respond to an article by Dr Leonardo Raznovich (Counsel , October 2025) – ‘Privy Council colonialism? Piercing the constitutional veil’
Chair of the Bar reports back
The client’s best interests could be well-served by sharing the advocacy with junior counsel more often than you might think – Naomi Cunningham and Charlotte Eves explore some less orthodox ways to divide the speaking role
