The number of rape victims pulling out of prosecutions before trial has more than doubled in five years amid record delays in the courts system in England and Wales, Guardian analysis has found.
There is also growing evidence that measures designed to make justice more bearable for those involved in rape cases are resulting in longer delays – and making them less likely to secure a conviction.
Insight into impacts on rape victims comes as the Guardian launches an examination of the crisis in courts across England and Wales, with the crown court backlog predicted to hit 100,000 without radical action.
In the past year, more than 280 rape prosecutions (7.3% of the total) have fallen through after potential victims withdrew in the wake of a charge. The rate of attrition has more than doubled in five years, up from 62 potential victims abandoning cases between charge and trial in 2019, or 2.8% of the total.
The court backlog for adult rape cases stands at a record high, with 3,656 people awaiting trial in June 2024, more than five times the number in 2019.
Some alleged victims are walking away from cases after years spent awaiting trial, which normally collapses as a result, while in other cases an alleged abuser may die before facing justice.
According to a major study of crown court cases, women who pre-recorded their evidence in rape trials – instead of giving evidence in person in the courtroom – were 41% less likely to secure a conviction.
Special measures allowing vulnerable complainants to be interviewed and cross-examined on video before a trial were introduced more than two decades ago under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
In 2022, they were expanded to cover all adult rape and serious sex assault cases in the hope of increasing the number of cases coming to trial.
Prof Cheryl Thomas KC, a judicial studies specialist at University College London, analysed all crown court jury verdicts over the last seven years where section 28 could be used. The jury conviction rate in rape cases where alleged victims pre-recorded all their evidence was 41%, compared with 69% for potential victims who were cross-examined live in court, the research found.
Thomas said section 28 had been introduced with “the best of intentions” but the reality for those using it was lower conviction rates, a lower likelihood of the defendant pleading guilty and a longer wait for a trial.
Barristers also told the Guardian that if the complainant’s evidence was pre-recorded, the trial did not receive the same priority as those with potential victims waiting to be cross-examined live, meaning longer delays.
Thomas said: “Somewhere along the line, it became the holy grail that we were going to be able to solve all the problems with rape and sexual offences cases if we could just get as many people as possible to pre-record their evidence.
“We know now that not only is it harder to get a conviction when your evidence is all pre-recorded, but it’s got all these awful unintended consequences for complainants and for the justice system.”
Andrew Wilkins, a barrister, was preparing to defend a child sex offence case in Wolverhampton in July this year that should have been ready for trial. “There had been section 28 pre-recorded evidence but no prosecution counsel was available,” he said. “It was refixed for February 2026 … They have to prioritise custody cases and those with witnesses who are going to be giving evidence.”
Designated rape and sexual offence courts have also been trumpeted by successive governments as a solution to the backlog but there is concern that while a shortage of specialist barristers and judges persists these will be of little value.
Many of the measures described in press releases about these “specialist” courts have been in place for some time, such as curtains to protect potential victims from view and screens to broadcast video evidence.
James Oliveira-Agnew, the secretary of the Criminal Bar Association, said specialist rape courts were a “waste of time” while there was such a chronic backlog. He said: “I’m a bit confused as to what it is that a specialist rape court is supposed to do that nothing else does. You’d be better just to get these cases listed and get them heard.”
A shortage of lawyers willing to take on rape and serious sexual assault cases is exacerbating the problem. They say the work is increasingly complex and poorly paid compared with other areas.
Last year, 139 sex offence trials did not go ahead on the day because no prosecution lawyer was available; a further 113 were postponed because of a lack of defence lawyers. This happened four times in 2018 and nine times in 2019.
Oliveira-Agnew said he had a rape case last year in which the trial had been delayed several times and then had to be cancelled because the alleged victim disappeared.
“It kept getting pushed down the line, and then eventually the police lost contact with her, and it just drifted away. When it came to the trial, I think it was two and a half, three years after the event and police couldn’t contact her.
“She didn’t provide a withdrawal statement. It’s just no one knew where she’d gone … and they just didn’t really have the resources to find her. So that case has drifted off, and eventually the crown offered no evidence. It didn’t even get to trial, because they just didn’t have a complainant.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The new government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising crown court backlog. These delays have consequences, with justice delayed and denied for far too many victims.
“While we are bound by our financial inheritance, this government is committed to delivering swifter justice. As a first step, we have added 500 further sitting days in the crown court to hear more trials. We have also extended magistrates court sentencing powers from six to 12 months, freeing up 2,000 days for the crown courts to handle the most serious cases.”
A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson said: “Justice is best served swiftly, and we recognise how damaging delays are for all those involved in criminal proceedings – victims, witnesses and also defendants.
“Reducing delays is our number one priority, which is why we are boosting the number of advocates in our ranks, so fewer trials are adjourned because of a shortage of barristers.”
