CPS Tells Prosecutors to Expose Patterns of Past Misconduct in Rape Trials

The Crown Prosecution Service has announced updated guidance encouraging prosecutors to make greater use of a suspect’s past patterns of behaviour in rape trials.

This may include previous allegations, inappropriate conduct, relevant offences, acquittals, non-conviction material and other behaviour which may help demonstrate a pattern, provided the court decides that the evidence is admissible.

This is important.

For too long, many victims of rape and serious sexual offences have felt that they are the ones on trial. Their clothing, messages, behaviour, trauma responses, memory, delay in reporting, previous relationships, mental health and credibility have been picked apart, while the suspect’s conduct is sometimes examined too narrowly.

The CPS update is designed to shift the focus back where it belongs: onto the suspect’s actions, behaviour, pattern and alleged offending.

What has the CPS announced?

On 24 June 2026, the CPS announced changes to its Rape and Serious Sexual Offences prosecution guidance.

The CPS says prosecutors are being urged to consider whether juries should hear about previous incidents where a defendant was accused of similar behaviour. Examples given include following someone home, acting aggressively in relationships, committing other sexual offences, or other relevant incidents, even where those incidents did not lead to charge or conviction.

This kind of evidence is known legally as bad character evidence.

The updated guidance encourages prosecutors to consider applying to introduce this material wherever it is relevant. The court then decides whether it can be used.

What is bad character evidence?

In criminal proceedings, bad character evidence is evidence of misconduct or a disposition towards misconduct. In simple terms, it may include evidence about previous convictions, previous allegations, previous conduct, or other behaviour which may be relevant to an important issue in the case.

But it is not a free-for-all.

Prosecutors cannot simply tell a jury every negative thing ever said about a defendant.

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, bad character evidence must pass through one of the statutory gateways and must be admissible. The court retains an important safeguarding role.

In rape and serious sexual offence cases, bad character evidence may be highly important where it demonstrates a relevant pattern of behaviour, context, propensity, targeting, escalation, grooming, coercion, violence, boundary crossing, stalking, harassment or a repeated explanation used by the suspect.

Why this matters in rape trials

Rape trials are often affected by myths and misconceptions.

These may include assumptions about:

• how a “real” victim should behave;
• whether someone should report immediately;
• whether trauma causes consistent memory;
• whether a calm victim is less credible;
• whether prior communication means consent;
• whether a relationship history means ongoing consent;
• whether physical injury must be present;
• whether lack of resistance means consent;
• whether delayed reporting means fabrication;
• whether a victim’s mental health makes them inherently unreliable.

The CPS guidance expressly recognises that rape misconceptions and assumptions must play no part in prosecutorial decision-making. Prosecutors are encouraged to identify and tackle those misconceptions as part of case strategy.

This matters because rape cases often involve limited physical evidence. A complainant’s account is evidence. The absence of independent corroboration does not automatically make a case weak or unreliable.

Examples given by the CPS

The CPS gives examples where bad character evidence has previously been used in rape trials.

These include:

• a statement from a suspect’s niece saying he had kissed her inappropriately, even though she had not reported it to police at the time;
• a previous rape acquittal being explained to a jury in a later rape trial;
• a case where a victim from an earlier rape allegation gave evidence in a later case to show similarities in the defendant’s behaviour.

These examples show why prosecutors are being encouraged to take a wider view of a suspect’s conduct.

A single allegation may appear isolated if viewed in a vacuum. But when earlier behaviour is properly investigated and legally admissible, a pattern may emerge.

Why non-conviction material can matter

One of the most important parts of the CPS update is the recognition that relevant material may exist even where there was no earlier conviction.

That matters because many sexual offences are never charged. Many are never reported. Some investigations end in no further action. Some victims withdraw support because the process is too traumatic. Some allegations are acquitted because the jury was not sure, not because the incident was proved false.

The absence of a conviction is not the same thing as proof that nothing happened.

This is difficult territory, because criminal trials must be fair to defendants. But ignoring relevant patterns simply because earlier conduct did not result in conviction can also produce injustice.

Why this may matter in domestic abuse and relationship rape cases

The guidance is especially important where rape allegations arise in the context of domestic abuse, coercive control or an intimate relationship.

In those cases, the alleged rape may not be understood properly if the jury hears only about the incident itself.

The wider relationship context may matter.

Relevant behaviour may include:

• coercive and controlling behaviour;
• physical violence;
• threats and intimidation;
• stalking or monitoring;
• economic control;
• sexual pressure or boundary violations;
• isolation from family or friends;
• degrading language or humiliation;
• threats involving children;
• post-separation harassment;
• a repeated pattern of denying, minimising or reframing abuse.

This is crucial because sexual violence in intimate relationships is often misunderstood.

People may assume that consent is more likely because the parties were in a relationship. That is wrong.

Consent must be freely given for each sexual act. It can be withdrawn. A relationship does not create permanent consent. Marriage does not create consent. Previous sexual history does not create consent.

The “victim on trial” problem

The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, Claire Waxman OBE, has described the longstanding problem that too much focus has been placed on dismantling a victim’s credibility rather than examining the suspect.

This is something survivors have been saying for years.

Victims often fear that if they report rape or sexual violence, they will be scrutinised more aggressively than the suspect.

They may fear questions about:

• what they wore;
• what they drank;
• why they went there;
• why they stayed;
• why they messaged afterwards;
• why they delayed reporting;
• why they cannot remember every detail;
• why they froze;
• why they did not fight back;
• why they previously had consensual sex with the suspect;
• why they are traumatised, distressed, calm, angry, confused or inconsistent.

A suspect-focused approach does not remove the need to test evidence. Criminal trials require rigorous scrutiny. But scrutiny should not become victim-blaming by another name.

What about false allegation arguments?

The updated guidance also addresses defence attempts to inquire into previous sexual allegations made by victims.

This matters because victims of rape and sexual offences may be deterred from reporting if they believe every previous allegation, trauma history, counselling record or private experience will be dragged into court.

The CPS guidance makes clear that these issues must be handled carefully and only pursued where necessary as a reasonable line of inquiry.

That is important. Previous allegations should not be weaponised against victims without a proper evidential basis.

The sexsomnia issue

The CPS update also includes additional guidance on the use of experts, including where the defence argues that “sexsomnia” occurred.

Sexsomnia is a claimed sleep-related condition raised in some sexual offence cases, where the defence may argue that sexual behaviour occurred while the defendant was asleep or not acting voluntarily.

The updated guidance encourages prosecutors to scrutinise such defences carefully.

That includes looking at:

• whether the suspect’s account makes sense in the context of the wider evidence;
• what the suspect said and did before, during and after the incident;
• whether there were messages or communications suggesting awareness;
• whether the defence expert has proper expertise;
• whether medical records were properly considered;
• whether a prosecution expert is required;
• whether the defence has a proper evidential foundation.

This is part of the wider suspect-focused approach.

The issue is not merely what explanation the suspect gives. The issue is whether that explanation withstands scrutiny when tested against the evidence.

Why this matters for family law

This is CPS guidance for criminal prosecutions. It does not directly change the family court rules.

But family lawyers should still pay attention.

Family courts regularly deal with allegations of rape, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, coercive control, stalking, harassment, post-separation abuse and harmful patterns of behaviour.

The same cultural problem appears repeatedly: victims feel they are the ones on trial.

In family proceedings, this may look like:

• mothers being scrutinised more than alleged perpetrators;
• fear being dismissed as historical or exaggerated;
• delayed disclosure being treated as suspicious;
• trauma responses being misread as inconsistency;
• coercive control being reduced to “poor communication”;
• sexual abuse allegations being treated as strategic rather than investigated properly;
• the focus shifting from alleged perpetrator behaviour to the victim’s credibility, tone, parenting or litigation conduct.

That does not mean family courts should simply accept every allegation untested. They should not.

But they should be pattern-literate.

They should understand that domestic abuse and sexual abuse are often contextual, cumulative and relational.

Patterns matter in safeguarding

Abuse is rarely understood properly if it is broken into isolated incidents and examined without context.

A pattern may include:

• repeated boundary crossing;
• sexual pressure;
• minimisation and denial;
• control of money, movement or communication;
• monitoring;
• jealousy framed as care;
• threats to take children;
• threats of self-harm or suicide;
• using court proceedings as control;
• intimidation at handovers;
• litigation abuse;
• stalking after separation;
• a repeated narrative that the victim is unstable, vindictive or lying.

When professionals do not look for patterns, victims are forced to prove the same dynamic repeatedly, one incident at a time.

That is exhausting.

It also benefits perpetrators who are skilled at presenting each incident as trivial, mutual, misunderstood or isolated.

What survivors should understand

If you are a survivor of rape, sexual assault or domestic abuse, this update may feel significant but also difficult.

It may be validating to hear prosecutors acknowledge that patterns of behaviour matter.

It may also be upsetting, because many victims know from experience that the system has not always listened properly.

A few practical points may help:

1. You are not responsible for proving a whole criminal case by yourself.
2. Delayed reporting does not mean the abuse did not happen.
3. Freezing, appeasing, staying in contact or returning to an abuser can be trauma responses.
4. A previous allegation not leading to conviction does not automatically mean it was false.
5. Patterns of behaviour may matter, including coercive control, threats, stalking and previous misconduct.
6. If there are family court proceedings, criminal justice material may also be relevant to safeguarding.
7. Specialist support can be important before, during and after court proceedings.

What practitioners should take from this

For lawyers, advisers, support workers and anyone involved in cases concerning abuse, the message is clear: patterns matter.

Practitioners should think carefully about:

1. Whether the case is being framed too narrowly.
2. Whether previous incidents are being ignored.
3. Whether there are earlier allegations, reports, messages or witness accounts.
4. Whether a repeated explanation by the suspect or alleged perpetrator is itself significant.
5. Whether domestic abuse context is necessary to understand sexual abuse allegations.
6. Whether rape myths or misconceptions are affecting the analysis.
7. Whether the victim is being treated as the problem rather than the suspect’s conduct being properly examined.
8. Whether expert evidence is needed to explain trauma, sleep-related defences, digital evidence or behaviour patterns.
9. Whether family court allegations are being treated with sufficient safeguarding seriousness.

This is not about weakening fairness. It is about making the evidential picture more complete.

The JSH Law view

JSH Law welcomes the direction of travel in the CPS guidance.

The shift towards suspect-focused investigation and prosecution is essential if rape and serious sexual offence cases are to be handled fairly and intelligently.

Victims should not be the ones placed on trial.

Evidence still needs to be tested. Defendants remain entitled to a fair trial. Courts must carefully control what is admissible.

But fairness does not require blindness to pattern.

Where there is relevant evidence of previous misconduct, similar allegations, coercive behaviour, sexual boundary crossing, stalking, harassment, violence or repeated patterns of control, prosecutors should be alive to it.

Family courts should also take the broader lesson seriously.

Abuse is often patterned. Risk is often cumulative. Victim-blaming is often subtle. And legal systems can cause real harm when they focus endlessly on the victim’s credibility while failing to scrutinise the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour with equal seriousness.

Sources and further reading

• CPS: Prosecutors urged to expose rape suspects’ patterns of past misconduct and abuse to juries
• CPS: Rape and Serious Sexual Offences prosecution guidance
• CPS: Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy 2025–2030
• Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 101: admissibility of defendant bad character evidence
• Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, section 41: restrictions on evidence or questions about complainants’ sexual history

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. If you are in immediate danger in the UK, call 999. If you are involved in criminal proceedings, family court proceedings or a safeguarding matter, seek specialist legal advice or support wherever possible.