She also argued that prosecutors had made an “inflated assumption of risk” by suggesting the brothers might identify the complainants on social media and cause them to withdraw from the case.
What charges the brothers are expected to face
The UK case has been building for some time. In 2024, Bedfordshire Police obtained European arrest warrants for Andrew and Tristan Tate, who are based in Romania and are also under criminal investigation there.
The brothers are expected to be extradited only after the Romanian legal proceedings against them have concluded. Once that happens, they will face the British charges.
In May 2025, prosecutors confirmed the full list of 21 charges that the brothers are eventually expected to answer in the UK. The alleged offences are said to have taken place between 2012 and 2016.
The charges include:
- Rape
- Human trafficking
- Other alleged offences across the wider 21-count case
The brothers have been told what charges they face. The dispute was narrower but significant: whether they were entitled to know, now, the names of the women making the allegations.
What the High Court decided
In a summary of his judgment published on Friday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said the brothers had no current legal right to be told the identities of the complainants.
“The claimants have no rights under any relevant statutory regime to be told of the identities of the complainants” at this point in the proceedings, he said.
He rejected all the grounds on which the brothers sought a judicial review, saying none were “arguable”. In other words, the case did not clear even the threshold needed to proceed. Not ideal, if your plan was to make the CPS explain itself at length.
The judge said prosecutors had sound legal reasons for taking a protective approach. He noted that a senior prosecutor had met the women and “formed her own view about their vulnerability”, as well as the likely effect if their identities were publicly disclosed.
He also said the men’s public profile mattered. “The high profile of the claimants was relevant to the extent of the damage that would be done if they chose to name the complainants publicly,” he said.
Why the judge called the risk real
Mr Justice Chamberlain addressed the brothers’ public status directly. He said that while Andrew and Tristan Tate are “of good character” in the technical sense used in criminal law, the prosecutor’s description of them as “notorious” was not unfair.
That conclusion, he said, was consistent with the fact that they are currently banned from all Google-owned social media platforms.
The judge found that prosecutors were entitled to take what he called a “precautionary approach”, especially given the public interest surrounding the case. In a legal system not known for dramatic phrasing, that is a fairly clear signal: the court accepted that the risk did not need to become a disaster before anyone was allowed to worry about it.
The brothers had offered a cash guarantee that they would not name the women. The court said that was allowed. Mr Justice Chamberlain said there was no legal mechanism that would make such an arrangement enforceable.
The brothers also argued that the withholding of names harmed their right to a fair trial because they could not properly prepare for a possible future trial. That argument was dismissed as well.
What happens next
The ruling means the CPS can continue withholding the complainants’ identities until the brothers are back in the UK and the criminal process formally begins.
For now, the UK case is waiting on the Romanian proceedings. But the next steps are clear: Bedfordshire Police have secured the warrants, prosecutors have set out the charges, and the High Court has now backed the decision to protect the women’s identities at this stage.
The court’s message was restrained but unmistakable. The brothers know the case is coming. They do not get the names yet.
