High Court dismisses Andrew and Tristan Tate's legal bid for alleged sexual offence victims to be named
The Luton raised brothers had claimed that the CPS withholding the names of alleged victims breached their right to a fair trial
Luton raised Andrew and Tristan Tate have had their legal challenge against the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dismissed by a High Court judge.
The Tates, facing legal proceedings in Romania, will be extradited to the UK after their Romanian case concludes to answer 21 charges including rape, actual bodily harm, and human trafficking.
Lawyers representing Andrew, 39, and Tristan, 37, argued on Tuesday that the CPS unlawfully breached their right to a fair trial by withholding the names of alleged victims until their return to the UK.
However, CPS barristers argued that the decision was made to prevent the potential identification of alleged victims online.
Mr Justice Chamberlain dismissed the challenge on Friday, stating it was not “arguable”.
In his judgement, Justice Chamberlain described the CPS’s decision as “coherent and rational,” explaining that defendants typically receive the necessary information for their defence when surrendered to the UK jurisdiction.
The alleged UK offences occurred between 2012 and 2016.
At a hearing, Sallie Bennett-Jenkins KC, representing the Tates, criticised the CPS’s decision as “wholly perverse,” based on the alleged vulnerability of complainants and the brothers’ social media notoriety.
She argued that this decision unjustly restricted the Tates from preparing their defence, even though both brothers offered a financial assurance of £20,000 each against public identification of alleged victims.
Tom Little KC, representing the CPS, explained in written submissions that the decision would be “kept under review” and the names provided once proceedings “commence substantively” in the UK, asserting CPS’s entitlement to make the decision.
Little raised concerns over potential "interference with the administration of justice" if names were revealed online, a scenario challenging to manage or prosecute while the brothers are abroad.
Justice Chamberlain noted that the notoriety of the Tates was relevant, agreeing that the CPS’s description of them as “notorious” was fair due to their ban from all Google-owned social media platforms.
He highlighted the importance of a precautionary approach to encourage witnesses in serious offences, such as sexual offences, to come forward.
The judge deemed the CPS's rejection of the Tates’ financial assurances as “obviously rational,” describing it as an “ad hoc security arrangement.”