The Tate brothers lost a UK court bid to name their accusers

Andrew and Tristan Tate have lost a legal bid to reveal the names of their UK co-defendants, which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has withheld to avoid possible disclosure.

The brothers could face charges including rape and people-trafficking in the UK after legal charges were brought against them when they were extradited from Romania.

The Tates, who both maintain that they have done nothing wrong, have called for a judicial review against the CPS’s decision to withhold the names of their female accusers at this stage.

A High Court judge dismissed the case on Friday, saying prosecutors had sufficient legal grounds to proceed with a criminal trial.

In the year In 2024, Bedfordshire Police issued a European Arrest Warrant for the pair to be returned from Romania, where they are currently under criminal investigation.

In May 2025, prosecutors confirmed a full list of 21 charges against Andrew Tate, 39, and Tristan Tate, 37.

The alleged crimes allegedly took place between 2012 and 2016.

When the accused were made aware of the allegations, the CPS decided it was important to withhold the names of their accusers until they returned to the UK and formal legal proceedings could begin.

At a Royal Court hearing earlier this week, his lawyer Sally Bennett-Jenkins Casey argued the decision was wrong and said he would be “treated differently to other suspects or defendants”.

The CPS had assumed the couple would identify complainants on social media and get them out of the process, but that was an “exaggerated estimate of risk,” she said.

But in his summary judgment published on Friday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: “The claimants have no right under any relevant legal system to be told the identity of the complainants”.

He said that any reason they asked for review was “not controversial” and that there were enough reasons to protect women’s identity.

A High Court judge said a senior prosecutor had met the women and “formed her own view of their vulnerability” with the effect that their identities could be made public.

“The high reputation of the claimants was significant in terms of the amount of damages that would be incurred if they chose to publicly sue the claimants,” he said.

Mr Justice Chamberlain continued: “Even if they were ‘of good character’ in the technical sense used by criminal lawyers, the prosecution’s description of them as ‘famous’ was unfair.

“It was consistent with the fact that all Google-owned social media platforms are currently blocked.”

Mr Justice Chamberlain said prosecutors were entitled to take a “precautionary approach” in the public interest in the case against the Tati brothers.

He also stated that the CPS had been protected by the right to provide financial security not to mention the names of the women and said that there is no legal way to enforce such an arrangement.

Their argument that their right to a fair trial was impeded by the CPS’s decision to fail to properly prepare for future hearings was also rejected.