If Victims Stop Trusting the System, We All Have a Problem

We spend a great deal of time encouraging victims of sexual violence to come forward.

Police forces, charities, campaigners and governments regularly tell victims that reporting matters. That their voices will be heard. That the criminal justice system, while imperfect, is capable of delivering justice.

All of these efforts rely on one thing: trust.

Trust is not a vague aspiration. It is one of the most important foundations of the justice system. Every rape investigation depends upon it. Every witness statement. Every phone handed over as evidence. Every victim asked to relive traumatic experiences through police interviews, court proceedings and public scrutiny.

Without trust, the system struggles to function.

Victims decide not to report. Witnesses disengage. Evidence is never collected. Cases never progress. Harm remains hidden.

This is why public confidence matters.

The recent sentencing in the Fordingbridge rape case has prompted widespread discussion about accountability, judicial decision-making and the treatment of violence against women and girls within the criminal justice system.

While much of the debate has focused on the sentence itself, the more important question may be what victims and the wider public take away from it.

Because if a victim watches events unfold and concludes that reporting is not worth the risk, the consequences extend far beyond a single courtroom.

And if enough victims reach the same conclusion, we all have a problem.

Trust Is a Public Safety Issue

When discussions about rape sentencing take place, the conversation often becomes narrowly focused on legal technicalities or individual judicial decisions.

Those discussions matter. The law matters.

But there is another dimension that deserves equal attention.

Victim confidence is not simply a matter of perception. It is a public safety issue.

Every government strategy aimed at tackling violence against women and girls relies upon victims being willing to engage with the justice system. Reporting rates, prosecutions and convictions all depend upon people believing that the process is worth undertaking.

That belief cannot be legislated into existence.

It must be earned.

Every interaction with police, every support service, every courtroom experience and every outcome contributes to how victims assess whether the system is capable of delivering justice.

When confidence weakens, the impact is felt long before any case reaches court.

Beyond a Single Case

Three teenage boys were convicted of raping two girls aged 14 and 15.

The assaults were filmed.

One of the victims has since spoken publicly about her experience, reportedly questioning whether putting herself through the criminal justice process had been worth it.

That should concern all of us.

Not because every victim must agree with every outcome.

Not because justice can only exist when public opinion is satisfied.

But because the system depends on victims believing there is value in reporting, even when the process is difficult.

The debate surrounding this case is therefore larger than the sentence itself.

It raises questions about how institutions maintain legitimacy, how confidence is built or lost, and how society demonstrates that it understands the seriousness of sexual violence.

Judicial Independence and Public Confidence Are Not Opposites

Much of the public conversation has framed this issue as a choice between judicial independence and public scrutiny.

That is a false choice.

Judicial independence is essential.

Courts cannot function if decisions are determined by social media campaigns, public pressure or political interference. The rule of law depends upon judges being able to make decisions without fear or favour.

At the same time, public confidence is equally important.

The justice system ultimately derives its legitimacy not only from legal procedure but from public belief that it is capable of addressing serious harm fairly and effectively.

The two principles are not in competition.

A healthy justice system requires both.

Protecting judicial independence does not mean avoiding scrutiny. Equally, questioning the impact of a decision on public confidence does not constitute an attack on judicial independence.

Democratic institutions are strongest when they are both independent and accountable.

The Question of Harm

The public reaction to this case has also highlighted a broader tension within discussions about youth offending.

The age of offenders matters.

Any functioning youth justice system must consider rehabilitation, maturity and the reality that young people can change.

Rehabilitation is an important principle and should remain so.

However, many members of the public have expressed concern that discussions surrounding serious sexual violence can sometimes appear more focused on the future prospects of perpetrators than the lifelong impact experienced by victims.

Whether that perception is fair or unfair is ultimately secondary.

The perception itself has consequences.

For victims watching from the sidelines, the question is often not whether offenders deserve opportunities to rebuild their lives.

The question is whether equal weight is being given to the lives that have already been permanently altered.

When people believe that balance has been lost, confidence suffers.

What Happens When Confidence Disappears?

This is the question that should concern everyone working within the violence against women and girls sector.

What happens when victims stop trusting the system?

Reporting falls.

Victims remain silent.

Evidence is never collected.

Offenders remain unidentified.

Patterns of abuse continue unchecked.

Communities become less safe.

Trust is a fragile commodity. Once lost, it can take years to rebuild.

The greatest risk emerging from cases such as Fordingbridge is not simply disagreement over a sentence.

It is the possibility that another generation of victims watches events unfold and quietly concludes that reporting is not worth the emotional cost, the public scrutiny or the personal risk.

That would represent a failure extending far beyond a single courtroom.

Where Do We Go From Here?

At CPVAWG, we support robust scrutiny, transparency and accountability wherever serious concerns arise about how violence against women and girls is addressed within public institutions.

We support calls for appropriate review mechanisms where public confidence has been significantly affected.

We also believe this case should prompt a broader national conversation about victim trust, institutional accountability and how the justice system demonstrates that it understands the seriousness of sexual violence.

Violence against women and girls has rightly been recognised as a national priority.

But priorities are measured not by statements, strategies or press releases.

They are measured by whether victims believe the system is capable of protecting them and delivering meaningful accountability.

Judicial independence must remain protected.

Public confidence must remain valued.

Neither can exist sustainably without the other.

Because if victims stop trusting the system, we all have a problem.

Take Action

Read and sign the petition.

Write to your MP.

Share this article and continue the conversation.

Trust in the justice system belongs to all of us. So does the responsibility to protect it.