CPS Language and Trust

CPS Language and Trust

Forced marriage. FGM. Dishonour abuse. Why words decide whether the system protects survivors.
By Aneeta Prem MBE, Founder of Freedom Charity (founded 2009)

CPS language and trust are inseparable. The words used by prosecutors and police shape urgency, influence what evidence is gathered, and signal to survivors whether they will be protected or misunderstood. In practice, wording affects what officers record, what investigators prioritise, and what prosecutors present in court. As a result, language can either sharpen safeguarding action or blur it.

Dishonour-driven abuse is not a private “family issue”. Instead, it is serious violence, often involving more than one perpetrator. Survivors describe surveillance, threats, punishment, confinement, forced travel, forced marriage and long-term coercive control. Some describe suicidal fear because they cannot see a safe exit.

Words do not sit quietly in documents. They travel. They reach victims, families, schools, police stations and courts. Therefore, in safeguarding, that travel can either protect survivors or strengthen perpetrators.

This article explains how CPS framing influences outcomes, where police and CPS practice can unintentionally deepen harm, and what must change if protection is to match risk.

CPS language and trust: why the current debate matters

In late 2025 and early 2026, public attention turned to how the CPS describes “harmful practices”. The Guardian reported controversy around a draft CPS document, including concerns raised by Jewish and Muslim leaders about stigma, misunderstanding and trust.

This is not a debate about faith. Instead, it is a safeguarding issue.

When official language becomes culturally charged, victims can fear stereotyping or disbelief. As a result, reporting can fall. In turn, lower reporting reduces visibility. Reduced visibility then helps perpetrators.

For that reason, the solution is not louder politics. Rather, it is professional precision. Crime must be named as crime, using language that builds trust rather than damages it.

What the CPS does and why its role is decisive

First, it matters to be clear about roles. The CPS prosecutes crime. Police investigate it.

Police gather evidence, safeguard victims and submit files. Prosecutors then apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which requires the evidential stage and the public interest stage, often referred to as the Full Code Test.

Those decisions shape everything that follows. They determine:

If the file is weak, prosecutors cannot build a case. If the framing is wrong, the court may never see the full criminality. Consequently, survivors can lose protection even where risk is known.

CPS information on forced marriage and so-called honour-based abuse:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/honour-based-abuse-and-forced-marriage

CPS legal guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-intimate-or-family-relationship

CPS language and trust in forced marriage and FGM cases

Forced marriage and FGM cases test whether the system understands coercion, consent and risk.

Victims may appear calm. They may comply. They may withdraw later. Professionals sometimes misread those realities as “choice”. However, coercion does not look like a tidy disclosure. Instead, it often looks like fear, silence, delay, and controlled behaviour.

A child cannot consent to marriage. Equally, a victim’s lack of open resistance does not equal agreement. Therefore, the system must focus on context: threats, surveillance, restriction, reputational pressure, and the role of multiple family members.

When prosecutors and investigators frame the case as crime, evidence gathering becomes more purposeful. Conversely, when the case drifts into cultural framing, uncertainty grows. Uncertainty then leads to hesitation. Hesitation costs safety.

Why survivors hesitate, withdraw, and go silent

However, the biggest barrier is often fear, not willingness. Many professionals still ask why victims do not “just leave”. That question misunderstands coercion.

In dishonour-driven abuse, the threat often comes from a network. One person monitors. Another threatens. Others report back. A negotiator may appear calm while pressure builds behind the scenes.

Survivors often know exactly what disclosure can trigger:

Silence can be a safety strategy. Similarly, compliance can be self-protection. For that reason, police and prosecutors must assess fear, not performance.

Forced marriage: the “holiday” that becomes captivity

Forced marriage often begins with deception. Often, it arrives as a family plan presented as normal.

A child may be told she is travelling abroad for a cousin’s wedding. She expects to attend. Then she discovers she is the bride. Her passport may be taken. She may be supervised constantly. She may be told she cannot return until pregnant.

Freedom Charity has supported cases where the first disclosure came as a desperate call, with suicidal thoughts, because the victim could not see a safe way out. This is not drama. It is coercion in real time.

Forced marriage information:
https://freedomcharity.org.uk/forced-marriage/

FGM: why safeguarding cannot wait for perfect disclosure

FGM is a serious criminal offence and a form of violence against women and girls.

In practice, prevention can fail when agencies wait for direct disclosure from children who cannot give it. Children may not understand what is planned. They may not have language for it. They may fear punishment, rejection, or blame. Therefore, safeguarding must act on credible risk and evidence, not on perfect wording from a frightened child.

Parliamentary scrutiny has repeatedly highlighted systemic issues affecting prevention and survivor support, including gaps in provision and evidence. As a result, the case for early action is not only moral. It is also institutional and evidence-led.

Police first response: where protection is won or lost

First contact often decides whether a survivor stays safe. For that reason, response quality matters.

Yet dishonour-driven abuse is still sometimes misread as:

That framing is dangerous. It tells perpetrators they can act with impunity. It also tells victims that disclosure creates risk rather than safety.

Common first-response failures include:

College of Policing guidance on honour-based abuse:
https://www.college.policing.police.uk/app/major-investigation-and-public-protection/honour-based-abuse

College of Policing guidance on stalking and harassment:
https://www.college.policing.police.uk/app/stalking-and-harassment

Good policing requires early clarity. It should also assume the possibility of escalation, forced travel risk and collective control.

Evidence: what makes CPS decisions possible

Crucially, prosecutors can only act on what the file proves. Evidence gathering is not a technical detail. It is protection.

Strong files show pattern and escalation. They do not reduce coercion to one argument. They often include:

When the file shows the full story, the criminality becomes clear. Conversely, when it fragments the pattern, cases become easier to challenge. As a result, victims can face prolonged risk.

Banaz Mahmod and Banaz’s Law: the lesson that still applies

Banaz Mahmod’s murder remains a national warning. She reported risk and sought protection. The system failed to stop what followed.

Campaigners continue to call for “Banaz’s Law”, a package of reforms aimed at improving how institutions respond to so-called honour-based abuse, with survivors at the centre of change.

This matters now because dishonour-driven abuse still relies on the same professional hesitation: minimisation at first contact, missed evidence, and a failure to recognise collective control. Banaz’s case is not only history. It is an instruction.

The problem with “honour-based abuse” wording

In England and Wales, “honour-based abuse” is not a statutory category. It is language.

Language creates meaning. Honour is a positive moral word. Yet the conduct described includes coercive control, threats, stalking, assault, forced marriage and sometimes FGM.

Survivors often say perpetrators used the word “honour” as an excuse for punishment. It was part of the threat. It was never honourable to them.

A safeguarding system should ask one direct question:

If “honour” is the perpetrator’s justification, why does it remain in the justice system’s label?

This is not semantics. Instead, it is about whose frame the state adopts. If the label echoes the perpetrator’s logic, it can weaken protection and confuse urgency.

Why Freedom Charity uses the term dishonour abuse

Freedom Charity uses the term dishonour abuse because perpetrators claim “dishonour” as the trigger for punishment and control.

Dishonour is the mechanism. It is the threat. It is the justification abusers use to silence victims and recruit others into enforcement.

That term removes moral uplift. It names harm clearly. Moreover, it helps professionals see what matters: coercion, risk and protection.

Freedom Charity safeguarding definition:
https://freedomcharity.org.uk/dishonour-abuse/

What must change now: a national safeguarding reset

Therefore, reform must focus on how cases are described, built, and prosecuted, not only on what the law already says.

1) Lead with criminal law framing

Use offence-based language first. Describe coercion clearly. Treat abuse as crime, not culture.

2) Treat group perpetration as high risk

When multiple perpetrators act, risk rises. Response and charging decisions should reflect that.

3) Act fast on forced travel indicators

Forced travel can become captivity. That risk demands urgent safeguarding action.

4) Build files that show pattern and escalation

Cases collapse when the file fragments a sustained course of conduct into isolated incidents.

5) Use language that increases reporting and trust

Words should help victims come forward. They should never echo the perpetrator’s excuse.

Freedom Charity: prevention, training and change

Freedom Charity was founded in 2009 to prevent abuse and protect those at risk.

We train frontline professionals. We work in schools. We engage boys through Not In My Name, so future men see coercion and violence as shameful, not acceptable.

We have also donated over 100,000 books (But It’s Not Fair and Cut Flowers) so safeguarding knowledge reaches children early, not after harm.

Not In My Name campaign:
https://freedomcharity.org.uk/not-in-my-name-campaign/

Conclusion

The CPS is right to recognise layered offending in violence against women and girls, and to commit to improving quality and trust.

However, it must now go further.

CPS language and trust sit at the heart of survivor protection. When words soften harm, delay follows. Conversely, when words name crime clearly, protection strengthens.

“In safeguarding, words are not cosmetic. They shape urgency, evidence and outcomes. If the state borrows the perpetrator’s framing, it weakens protection.”
Aneeta Prem MBE

There is no honour in abuse. There is only harm. The justice system should name it with clarity, prosecute it with seriousness, and protect survivors without hesitation.

Get help or request training

If you are at risk, worried about someone else, or need professional guidance, contact Freedom Charity:
https://freedomcharity.org.uk/contact-us/

FAQs

What does CPS language and trust mean?

It means CPS wording can affect public confidence, influence case framing, and shape whether survivors feel safe reporting serious abuse.

Why do forced marriage and FGM cases still fail?

They can fail due to weak first response, misunderstanding coercion, missing evidence of patterns, and underestimating group perpetration and escalation.

Why does Freedom Charity use the term dishonour abuse?

Because perpetrators use “dishonour” as the trigger for punishment and control. The term avoids giving abuse any positive moral framing.