The High Court heard on Tuesday that Andrew and Tristan Tate are not being told the names of the women who have accused them of rape and human trafficking, due to concerns the brothers might publish the identities on social media. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) authorised charges against the Tates in March 2024, but the accusers' names have been withheld from the brothers and their legal representatives. The Tates deny all allegations.
Judicial review application
Lawyers for the Tates sought a judicial review of the CPS's decision, arguing that the unprecedented withholding of the women's identities prejudices the brothers' ability to defend themselves and breaches their human rights. They claimed the CPS failed to consider the brothers' "good character" and that prosecutors are prejudicing their right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
At the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain, it was revealed that Andrew Tate, 39, is accused by three women of crimes committed between 2014 and 2016. His brother Tristan, 37, is accused by one woman relating to alleged criminality between April 2012 and 2016. Both deny the allegations.
Risk of social media exposure
The court heard that arrest warrants issued in 2024 detailed the allegations but omitted the accusers' names. Bedfordshire police declined an offer to interview the Tates in Romania, where they currently reside. Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales, submitted that the brothers "have a massive following on social media," noting Andrew Tate has over 10 million followers on X. Parkinson cited an example where Andrew Tate posted images of a male on September 16, 2025, which garnered 2.8 million views in under 10 hours.
Parkinson argued that withholding the names was necessary due to the "real risk of the identities of the complainants being published on social media and/or of them being contacted by or on behalf of the [Tates] with the consequential risk of interference with the administration of justice." He described the women as "vulnerable" and stated that the Tates would be informed of the identities once extradited to the UK. The CPS rejected a proposal from the Tates' lawyers that they would individually pay a £20,000 fine if the names were disclosed.
Defence arguments
Sallie Bennett-Jenkins KC, representing the brothers, called the CPS approach "novel" and unreasonable, questioning why other high-profile defendants had not been treated similarly. She noted that the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 provides lifelong anonymity for complainants in sexual offence cases, arguing there was no evidence the Tates would publicly identify the women. Bennett-Jenkins told the court that withholding the identities left the brothers in a "vacuum" and that the prosecutor lacked expertise to determine the women's vulnerability.
In a written submission, she stated: "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they have been treated differently from other suspects or defendants in criminal proceedings. The controversial opinions of the [Tates] are not a proper basis for denying them basic information about the criminal allegations they face."
Court decision pending
Mr Justice Chamberlain said he would issue a written decision on the judicial review application by the end of the week. A CPS spokesperson commented: "Tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for the CPS, and we are committed to treating every victim with the care and protection they deserve. We await the high court's decision and will consider our next steps."
