Bedfordshire Police secured European arrests warrants for the two brothers in 2024

Andrew, 39, and Tristan Tate, 37, have lost a legal challenge against the Crown Prosecution Service after asking the courts to name their alleged victims.

At a hearing at the The Royal Courts of Justice, the brother's barrister said the decision to withhold names was "flawed" and said they had been "treated differently".

Lawyers for the CPS argued the claim should be thrown out, saying the "time-limited" decision to keep the alleged victims anonymous were substantiated by fears the Tates could identify them online.

Mr Justice Chamberlain dismissed the brother's challenge, finding it was not "arguable".

Reading a summary of the ruling, he said: "The decision taken in this case was coherent and rational."

In his 12-page- judgement, Mr Justice Chamberlain said the Tates' human rights had not been breached.

He said: “The claimants will be provided with the identities of the complainants if and when they are surrendered to and prosecuted in this jurisdiction.

“In general, that is the point when an accused person is expected to answer the case against him and, therefore, the point when, as a matter of fairness, he needs to be given the information necessary to enable him to provide that answer.”

The two brothers will face 21 charges in the UK, including human trafficking and rape, after they will be extradited from Romania, where they are also facing legal proceedings.

The charges in the UK relate to offences allegedly committed in a period between 2012 and 2016.

Andrew, a social media influencer, has described him and his brother as "very innocent men".

Sallie Bennett-Jenkins KC, who are representing the two brothers, said the CPS's decision to anonymise the alleged victims was "wholly perverse".

She said the decision was incorrectly based upon "the alleged vulnerability of the complainants and predicated on the ‘notoriety’ of the claimants and the size of their social media following".

Ms Bennett-Jenkins continued to say the brothers were being treated differently from other suspects and the anonymity decision prevented them for making appropriate preparation for their defence.

She continued to argue CPS had unreasonably refused to disclose the names of the alleged victims despite both brothers offering financial assurances of £20,000 each that they would not publicly identify them.

The CPS rejected the Tates offering to be interviewed under caution from Romania as well, she said.

Tom Little KC, representing the CPS, said in written submissions that the decision was being "kept under review" and that the Tates would be provided with the names when proceedings "commence substantively" in the UK.

In court documents, Mr Little also warned of a risk of "interference with the administration of justice" if the alleged victims were named online.

He did acknowledge, however, this would be "almost impossible to police and/or successfully prosecute" while the Tates remained abroad.

Mr Justice Chamberlain said the profile of the Tates was "not an irrelevant factor", describing the CPS's characterisation of them as "notorious" as "not unfair".

He noted it was "consistent with the fact that they are currently banned from all Google-owned social media platforms".

The judge said prosecutors were "entitled to take a precautionary approach given the high public interest in ensuring that witnesses alleging serious offences, including sexual offences, are not discouraged from giving evidence".

He described the Tates' financial assurances as an "ad hoc security arrangement" which it was "obviously rational" for the CPS to reject.