Defence Barrister Forum

Our work is rooted in advocacy and systemic improvement to ensure justice for all those affected by sexual violence. In pursuit of genuine parity of justice, defence barristers have raised concerns that recent procedural and policy developments may increasingly favour the complainant, risking an imbalance within the trial process. These concerns are not oppositional, but arise from a deep and principled commitment to fairness, due process, and the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Justice Is Now believes it is essential to listen carefully to these perspectives and ensure they are meaningfully considered by the CPS and the wider Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) sector. Many Barristers both Defend/Prosecute. To join the forum please email info@justiceisnow.org

Our first Defence Barrister Forum was held on  22 January in Liverpool. Please find key reflections:

Currently, the requirements of the criminal injuries compensation scheme require that an application is made within 2 years of a report being made to the police absent exceptional circumstances.  The guidance specifically says that applications should not be delayed to await the outcome of court proceedings.  However, if an application is made while court proceedings are ongoing, it opens up a line of questioning about whether the complaint is motivated by financial gain and even if denied plants the idea in the mind of the jury.  Additionally, an outline of the offending has to be provided when an application is made which risks an inconsistent account being provided which would also be a further line of potential questioning.  It would seem a relatively simple change for the government to make to change the rules so that there is no obligation to apply until after a court case is concluded, which would cut off that line of questioning at the knees.  

RASSO Defence Barrister February 2026

Summary of forum:

• Many prosecuting and defending barristers are handling back-to-back RASSO trials, which raises concerns about maintaining parity and fairness in the justice process. The time available to spend with complainants before trial has been reduced, and in some cases, counsel first meet complainants on the day of the trial.

• There should be a stronger focus on ensuring that complainants understand the types of questions they may be asked.

• At the pre-trial stage, explaining the fundamentals of the adversarial system and the concept of reasonable doubt should not be regarded as coaching.

• Complainants need clear explanations that their credibility may be challenged and what that will involve.

• There should be openness to receiving feedback from complainants about their experience.

• There is concern about the number of cases involving strangulation, particularly those involving younger defendants.

• Anecdotally, the feel convictions have increased over the past 18 months.

• Questions have been raised about case strength. It has been observed that some cases brought to trial appear weak, raising the issue of whether it is appropriate to put a complainant through a lengthy and demanding process if the likelihood of conviction is low. This points to a wider systemic need and reflection.

• Section 28  - There was a concern that when evidence is given under Section 28, the complainant may not be able to connect with the jury in the same way as when giving evidence in person. There was general consensus around this point, while also acknowledging that the process can work well for some complainants.It was felt that complainants should be clearly informed of the advantages and disadvantages of Section 28, including the potential impact—positive or negative—on how their evidence may be received by the jury.

• The quality of the technology and filming was criticised in some instances.