When Abigail, a 13-year-old schoolgirl, learned that she would have to give evidence in court for a second time, she wept in frustration. The first time she had testified about being raped, the experience had left her physically sick and unable to sleep. Now, after the teenage boy convicted of attacking her appealed, she faced the prospect of recounting the crime once again.
Abigail is not her real name. The 15-year-old offender cannot be named because of reporting restrictions. The two first met on Snapchat last year after being introduced by friends. Their first meeting took place outdoors in a small group, where they sat together and played music on their phones. When Abigail agreed to meet him again, alone, on a sunny June afternoon at the same place, she expected another ordinary meeting. Instead, he led her to a nearby clearing and raped her, leaving her bleeding and bruised on her arms and legs.
Four days passed before Abigail told her mother what had happened. She later said the attack had left her “broken”. The following day, mother and daughter went to the police station. As an investigating officer listened to Abigail’s account, he noticed similarities with statements recently made by two other girls, aged 16 and 15, who had separately reported rapes in the same area several months earlier.
After Abigail positively identified the offender through a digital lineup, the officer realised that he was the same teenager already under investigation. The boy had been on bail in connection with the two earlier offences. Essex police arrested him again in early July after Abigail came forward, and a week later the Crown Prosecution Service brought the three separate cases against him.
They subsequently proceeded together at a youth court, a special type of magistrates’ court for defendants aged between 10 and 17. Unlike adults accused of rape, who must be tried before a jury in a crown court if they plead not guilty, most child defendants are initially dealt with in youth courts before a district judge, even when the alleged offence is rape.
The distinction has an important consequence. Convictions or sentences imposed by magistrates’ courts carry an automatic right of appeal. Advocates regard that right as an important safeguard against miscarriages of justice. But in rape cases involving child defendants, an appeal can mean that victims who have already endured the ordeal of giving evidence must confront the experience again when the case reaches a crown court.
The issue is gaining attention as concern grows over sexual violence committed by children against other children. In the year to March, Ministry of Justice statistics showed that 186 defendants aged under 18 had been dealt with at youth courts for rape offences, compared with 150 the previous year.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has found that children now account for about half of all suspects linked to child sexual abuse and exploitation offences where the suspect’s age is known. Historically, child-on-child abuse accounted for about a third of such offences.
Experts have pointed to misogynistic attitudes amplified online and widely available pornography as factors shaping some young people’s understanding of relationships, consent and sexual behaviour.
“Harmful ideas are becoming normalised at an alarming rate, and our prevention efforts have not kept pace with the scale of that challenge,” said Andrea Simon, Victims’ Commissioner for London.
The increase in reported offences may also reflect greater awareness among young people of what constitutes a crime, according to Sharron Wareham of the Centre of expertise on child sexual abuse. Her experience as a social worker has also shown her that many children displaying harmful sexual behaviour have themselves experienced abuse.
The government has acknowledged the problem. A March report by the Youth Justice Board identified misogyny and childhood trauma as factors driving violence against women and girls online and offline. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson told The Observer: “We are deeply concerned about child-on-child sexual violence… violence against women and girls is an epidemic, and we’re treating it as one.”
Against that backdrop, the experience of victims like Abigail has raised questions about whether the youth court system can protect children from avoidable further trauma.
Abigail’s five-day youth court trial in Essex took place in November. She gave evidence through a live video link from a separate room so she did not have to face the teenager who had attacked her. The two other victims did the same. The judge found the defendant, who was 16 at the time, guilty of three counts of rape and one of assault by penetration.
But the girls barely had time to process the verdict. The offender appealed soon afterwards, meaning the case would be heard again, this time in a crown court.
Abigail had never met or spoken to the other two victims before Essex police connected their cases. Yet the prospect of having to return to court created an unspoken bond between them. When Abigail learned that she would have to give evidence again, she faced an agonising decision.
“I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t know whether to go back there,” she said. “But then I didn’t want to let the other girls down, and I wanted to be strong. So I went back and did it because I wanted to get justice.”
For those working with vulnerable witnesses, the consequences of repeating evidence can be profound. Rowan Brooks, a registered intermediary who helps vulnerable victims give evidence during trials, told The Observer that he had seen “first-hand how traumatic it can be for children who have experienced sexual violence to revisit that incident again”. The effects, he said, can extend beyond wellbeing to the quality of evidence they provide.
Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner for England and Wales, said “child victims should not be carrying the burden of avoidable flaws in our justice system”. She added: “When there are proven ways to spare children from having to go through that ordeal more than once, we should be using them.”
One such measure already exists. Since 2022, section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act has allowed vulnerable victims and witnesses in crown courts to pre-record their cross-examination before trial, following a pilot that began in 2013. But the measure is not available in magistrates’ courts, including youth courts.
It remains unclear how many rape cases heard in youth courts are subsequently appealed. The Ministry of Justice said in response to a freedom of information request that it does not hold that information. Last year, however, about 6,000 magistrates’ court decisions were appealed to the crown court.
Criminal lawyers working in youth courts told The Observer that appeals were rare, partly because defendants risked receiving a more severe sentence at crown court. But with fewer than 3% of recorded rape cases charged by the end of 2024, and high attrition rates, the number of appeals would inevitably be limited.
The government has already tested an alternative approach. In September 2022, Leeds Youth Court began a pilot programme using section 28, intended to ensure that victims and witnesses were questioned as early as possible after an offence and only once. The Ministry of Justice confirmed that the trial, which ended in April, meant witnesses would not have to repeat their evidence if a case was appealed.
Asked about plans to extend the pilot or otherwise address the problem of repeated testimony, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We are seeking to reform the magistrates’ courts appeals process, which would reduce unnecessary hearings so victims are not forced to relive their trauma by giving evidence again.”
Claire Waxman and Amelia Handy of Rape Crisis England & Wales have called for pre-recorded cross-examination to be available to victims of sexual offences in youth courts before trial. Handy said the requirement for children to give evidence twice was “very concerning”, warning that it “may increase the chances of them withdrawing from the prosecution entirely” and could produce “perceived inconsistencies in evidence, and ultimately undermine prosecutions”.
For Abigail, the prospect of returning to court came as she was trying to resume ordinary life. In late May, during the summer term, she struggled to concentrate at school and felt overwhelmed by being surrounded by other people.
“I was literally begging Dad to have days off every day,” she said. “I felt overwhelmed at school with everyone around me.”
Her father described the distress he witnessed at home. “She was crying to me. Crying to me at nighttime. It was tough,” he said.
Three days before the rehearing at an Essex crown court, Abigail pre-recorded her cross-examination through a live link to the courtroom under section 28. The questions requiring her to recount precise details of the attack were almost identical to those asked during the youth court trial. Knowing what to expect, however, did not make the experience easier.
“I felt really under pressure that I had to do it again,” she said.
At the three-day appeal, a judge and two magistrates watched police video interviews with each of the three girls and the newly recorded cross-examinations. They also heard evidence from the offender, who described how he had used Snapchat to communicate with each victim before the attacks. Each girl rejected his claims that the sex had been consensual and described repeatedly asking him to stop. In Abigail’s case, CCTV footage showed the offender leading her towards the place where the rape occurred.
The prosecutor, Benjamin Thiele-Long from Drystone Chambers, described an “escalation” in the offender’s attacks and said he had been “pushing the limits to what he could get away with”. He described the courage of the three victims in sharing their experiences twice as “a heroic act”.
On the third and final day, the court dismissed the appeal.
At the subsequent sentencing hearing, Thiele-Long read witness statements from two of the girls and their mothers. The 16-year-old victim wrote: “Having to relive what happened has destroyed me.” Yet she also said she had later felt she “needed to give evidence again so people are safe”.
The mother of the 15-year-old victim described how her daughter had almost withdrawn from the case after the appeal because of the “excruciating” experience of giving evidence the first time. All three mothers described changes in their daughters, saying they felt unsafe and were now frightened to go outdoors alone.
The court also heard during mitigation about the offender’s engagement with peers involved in criminal activities. Defence counsel Alfred Underwood pointed to the influence of peers and the internet in promoting a “sense of entitlement” and “a lack of empathy towards women”, arguing that “these things do not happen in a vacuum”.
The boy, now 17, was sentenced to eight and a half years in custody and must serve a further two-year extended licence period after his sentence ends.
Abigail and her family did not attend the sentencing hearing. Instead, they received the outcome by telephone from police. Her father said they were now concentrating on putting the ordeal behind them and rebuilding their lives.
But Abigail wants her experience to have a wider consequence. Asked what she would say to other teenage survivors of rape, she offered a simple message shaped by everything she had endured: “Get justice and be strong. Just keep being strong, keep fighting.”
