A woman known as Annie is suing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), claiming that the way prosecutors handled her stepfather's child abuse trial was so flawed that it violated her human rights. If she wins, it could mean the CPS can be held financially liable not just for whether it decides to prosecute someone, but for how it conducts the case itself.

Annie reported her stepfather to police in 2017 for abuse she suffered as a child. The case didn't go to trial until 2021, after the court date was abandoned several times. When it finally happened, the jury couldn't reach a verdict, and the stepfather was acquitted — a result her lawyers at the Centre for Women's Justice say was shaped by repeated mistakes the prosecutors made.

The Alleged Failures

Annie's legal team points to a series of decisions they argue fell far short of acceptable standards. Prosecutors didn't ask the court to admit what's called "bad character evidence" — evidence that the stepfather had acted violently or abusively before. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, courts can allow this kind of evidence to show a pattern. In abuse cases, this matters: one incident, standing alone, might seem less convincing than a pattern of behavior.

The problems go further. Annie's police interview — usually the most important piece of evidence a victim provides — was edited to remove what she said about domestic abuse, cruelty, and neglect in her childhood. A photograph of her mother's injuries from an alleged assault by the stepfather was never shown to the jury. A lawyer's letter describing a violent attack he'd committed on another family member was never mentioned in court. Police records of past calls about his domestic abuse weren't presented to the judge or jury.

Each omission alone might be debatable. But taken together, Annie's lawyers argue they amount to a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights — the rule against cruel or degrading treatment. The Convention doesn't just ban this treatment; it also says the state has a duty to investigate and try serious abuse cases properly.

The Systemic Backdrop

Annie's case is not unique. A 2025 inspection by His Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate found that prosecutors handled bad character evidence properly in fewer than two in ten adult rape cases. That's fewer than one in five — a statistic suggesting what happened to Annie wasn't a fluke but a pattern baked into how the CPS operates.

Why the Centre for Women's Justice chose a civil human rights case rather than a complaint to the CPS or a challenge to the original charging decision matters legally. The Human Rights Act 1998 lets people sue public bodies for breaking Convention rights. But proving that a prosecutor's failures were serious enough to violate the state's duty to protect victims is a high bar. Courts have traditionally been reluctant to tell prosecutors they got the case strategy wrong — prosecutors have broad discretion, after all.

The outcome here will hinge on how the judge weighs the failures together. A series of individually defensible choices might not add up to a Convention breach, or it might. That interpretive question is precisely why this case extends beyond Annie's circumstances.

The picture here is about accountability. If Annie wins, the CPS would face legal pressure to treat prosecutorial competence in abuse and rape cases as a human rights obligation — one with teeth. That would be a real departure. The inspectorate's findings have been circulated inside the CPS for years without driving change in how prosecutors use bad character evidence. Litigation changes incentives. The prospect of damages and a binding court judgment operates differently than an internal inspection.

For prosecutors, victim support lawyers, and those working on violence against women and girls policy, this case is worth watching. It tests a legal theory that, if it succeeds, rewires how the CPS can be held accountable for the way it tries serious sexual and domestic abuse cases.