13 men accused in Stockport abuse case as husband pleads guilty

Reporting restrictions were lifted in the Stockport case, allowing the 13 alleged co-accused to be named while the husband at the centre of the allegations remains anonymous to protect his wife's identity. The man, in his 60s and from the Stockport area of Greater Manchester, pleaded guilty at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court to raping and sexually assaulting his wife and to sharing intimate photographs and films of her without her consent between 2022 and 2025.

He had previously denied 48 charges. Prosecutors allege the abuse stretched back more than two decades, with conduct dating to 2004, and that he drugged his wife so he could rape and sexually assault her while she was unconscious. From 2023, he is also accused of inviting other men to assault and rape her.

The 13 co-defendants are aged between 28 and 73. One man in his 50s has already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rape, conspiracy to assault by penetration, conspiracy to administer a substance with intent to stupefy or overpower, and assault by penetration. Ten of the other men are alleged to have committed contact sexual offences as well as conspiracy offences. The remaining defendants are due to stand trial at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court on 1 September 2026.

The decision to remove anonymity for the alleged co-accused puts the public record at the centre of the case, while the court continues to protect the complainant’s identity. That balance is critical in prosecutions involving prolonged sexual violence and multiple alleged participants: open justice allows scrutiny of the charges, the pleas and the conduct of each accused, but it does not require the victim to be identified in order for the proceedings to be seen.

The case has drawn comparisons with the French proceedings against Dominique Pelicot, whose drugging of his wife and recruitment of dozens of men to rape her led to convictions in Avignon and became a defining test of openness in court. In the Stockport case, the legal line has been drawn differently, with the alleged perpetrators named and the husband still shielded because identifying him would identify the victim.