Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, LinkedIn post and GoFundMe page for Enough, a non-profit organisation promoting DNA testing kits for victims of sexual assault, seen in November 2025:
a. The website www.myenough.com, included
a page headed “Is Enough evidence admissible in Court?”, and text below stated, “Yes, it can be […] If the survivor will testify that the DNA sample was correctly collected following the instructions to avoid contamination, then an Enough DNA sample can be admissible* […]”. The asterisk linked to text further down the page stating, “*Full legal opinion by a leading KC Rape Barrister” followed by a link titled “see here”. That linked to another page with the same heading “Is Enough evidence admissible in Court?*” and text below stated, “*Advice from King’s Counsel with experience in the admission of DNA evidence and the prosecution of serious sexual assaults […] If the fact of contact by a particular individual is in dispute, it is conceivable that DNA evidence gathered using Enough could be deployed by the prosecution and deemed relevant and admissible by the court in a limited range of cases. In the first instance, the court would have to be satisfied, by the survivor’s own testimony, that the sample retrieved is genuine, free from contamination and has been collected and (whilst in their custody) retained in accordance with the instructions provided with our packs […]”.
On another page headed “Misconceptions about Enough: Rape Crisis & FFLM”, text below stated “[…] It’s disappointing to see that there are quite widespread misconceptions and miscommunications about Enough. There are 2 main confusing and incorrect claims: […] 2. Evidence from Enough is not admissible. This is not correct. The most senior law officers, police officers, and KC’s; including authorities in DNA admissibility confirm that if DNA evidence is relevant to a case; and if a survivor will testify as to how they collected the sample and sent it for analysis; then it can be admissible. The police are already using Enough samples in cases […]”.
A further page headed “The rape epidemic in our society”, with text below that stated, “Sexual violence is at endemic levels in [sic] UK with 430,000 rapes a year […] A woman is twice as likely to be raped as be diagnosed with cancer […]”.
A page headed “About” stated, “430,000 rapes in the UK last year […]”.
b. A post on Enough’s LinkedIn page, which had been originally posted by another user and had been reposted by Enough, featured text stating “Our daughters are twice as likely to be raped than get cancer […]”.
c. Enough’s GoFundMe page included text stating, “Over 400,000 women are raped every year […]”.
Issue
The complainant, a former a Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, former Head of the Prison and Probation Services in England and Wales, and former Chief Executive of Barnardo’s, challenged whether the claims:
1. in ad (a) regarding the evidence from Enough’s testing kits being admissible in court were misleading and could be substantiated;
2. in ad (a) “430,000 rapes a year” and “430,000 rapes in the UK last year”, and in ad (c) “Over 400,000 women are raped every year”; and
3. in ad (b) “A woman is twice as likely to be raped as be diagnosed with cancer” in ad (a) and “Our daughters are twice as likely to be raped than get cancer”
were misleading and could be substantiated, because they were substantially higher than, for example, figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Cancer Research.
Response
1. This is Enough Ltd t/a Enough said their goal was to make clear that their kits were an option for survivors who did not wish to pursue a criminal justice route or attend a Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC). Those survivors would otherwise have no evidence and Enough wanted to help them retain other options.
They said they communicated on their website that self-collected DNA could be admissible in court but did not carry the same evidentiary weight as a full forensic examination. For example, the message on the home page of their website was that Enough was option 3 after the police and SARC. From their consultations with over a thousand students and numerous experts, they said they were confident that this message was being conveyed accurately. However, they were willing to refine that message further if necessary. They provided a document summarising the results of consumer research that was carried out by Enough in conjunction with a third-party market research company in March 2026; research that Enough had carried out at university ‘pop-up’ events; and research commissioned by the NHS in 2022 regarding the perceptions of different reporting routes for survivors of sexual assault. They also provided a copy of an email chain with a police officer who had given feedback on the contents of their website in 2024.
Enough said their aim was not to direct more survivors into the criminal justice system, as they maintained most did not want that. Instead, their reporting platform and social media outreach were designed to drive public awareness, behavioural change, and prevention. They anticipated that only a minority of those visiting their website would collect DNA samples (approximately 25%), and a smaller proportion would later report to police, which they estimated to be around 2.5–5%.
Enough said that the opinion of a leading King’s Counsel (KC) authority on DNA admissibility was reproduced in full on their website. They provided the name of the KC to the ASA but said that Bar Council restrictions meant that the KC could not officially publish it. They maintained that the KC’s opinion was confirmed by other KCs, a former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and former Chief Constable. They provided a document that they said contained quotes about Enough from a named Police and Crime Commissioner and University Professor, as well as unnamed former leading forensic scientist and former Chief Constable.
They said their testing kits was option 3 for evidence collection. It did not replace the detailed forensic examination conducted via the Police or SARCs which were options 1 and 2; it only replaced inaction, which they said was the reality for most survivors today. Before using Enough’s testing kit, survivors were required to tick a box which stated, “I understand that Enough is my 3rd reporting option after the Police and a SARC, that a full forensic examination would be more comprehensive, and may have more evidentiary value in a legal case than an Enough sample. I consent to collection of a tissue sample and subsequent DNA analysis. * SARC = Sexual Assault Referral Centre.”
They said that Enough’s evidence (DNA and testimony) could be admissible, but was not guaranteed to be admissible. That was the case for all types of evidence, including that collected by the Police/SARC. They understood that any evidence available to the police should be used in a case and presented to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). They said rape cases had proceeded using DNA evidence from tampons and underwear which could therefore be admissible in court.
They said the only people who could determine the admissibility of evidence obtained using their testing kits was the judges of rape trials. They maintained that such evidence, like other self-collected items (for example, underwear or tampons), may be relevant and admissible depending on the circumstances and the judge’s decision. They believed that the chance of a police-obtained DNA sample being admitted in court was very low.
They believed leading forensic experts had long known that it was possible for survivors to obtain DNA evidence using self-testing kits without contamination, and such kits had been developed and tested several times. They said their product was a forensic grade swab in a kit made by the same company that produced them for the police.
They said self-testing kits were in use in Australia, being assessed by the Canadian government, were used by the police in California during Covid, and had been previously distributed to the police in Liverpool and Essex.
2. They said that, like many other organisations, they estimated the real level of rape by looking at the proportion of unreported rapes as well as the number of rapes reported to the police. They said it was widely acknowledged that the majority of survivors of rape were not reporting the crime and therefore representing them was essential. They said their communications used the best available data on under-reporting to estimate the likely true prevalence of rape.
They said that in the previous full year (2024), according to the ONS, 71,227 rapes were reported to the police (ONS Crime Survey England & Wales year ending December 2024). They provided a copy of that report.
They said that the ONS ‘Nature of sexual assault by rape or penetration 2020’ report said that five out of six women, and four out of five men, did not report to the police. They provided a copy of that report. Applying those figures to the reported figures, they believed that the actual incidence of rape was 401,720 women and 25,641 men: 427,361 in total. They said that the latest ONS figures (for the year ending March 2025) showed that the figures for unreported rapes were higher: that five out of six women and seven out of eight men did not report. They believed that indicated an incidence level of 490,336 rapes in 2025. They provided a copy of that report. They said that trend was consistent over time and also provided a copy of an earlier 2017 ONS report which stated that 17% of survivors had reported the rape to police.
They also provided a copy of a paper published in 2015 written by authors who they understood were key advisers to the UK government on the perpetration and prevention of rape which, they said, estimated that over the long term only 6–18% of rapes were reported to the police.
3. Enough said that they had based the claims on the rape statistics set out in point 2 above (401,720 women raped per year) and Cancer Research statistics that estimated that approximately 186,000 women were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year. They believed the number of women raped in the previous year were therefore 2.2 times higher than the number of women who were diagnosed with cancer.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA understood that the admissibility of forensic evidence as part of a rape trial was extremely complex and depended on a multitude of factors. We also understood that there were forensic guidelines for how such evidence was obtained, handled and stored, so as to minimise the risk of contamination, for example, as set out in the Forensic Science Regulator’s Guidance on Forensic medical examination of sexual offence complainants and Guidance on DNA contamination controls: forensic medical examinations.
The ad contained the following claims. On a page headed “Misconceptions about Enough: Rape Crisis & FFLM” text part-way down the page stated, “It’s disappointing to see that there are quite widespread misconceptions and miscommunications about Enough. There are 2 main confusing and incorrect claims: 2. […] Evidence from Enough is not admissible. This is not correct. The most senior law officers, police officers, and KC’s; including authorities in DNA admissibility confirm that if DNA evidence is relevant to a case; and if a survivor will testify as to how they collected the sample and sent it for analysis; then it can be admissible. The police are already using Enough samples in cases […]”.
On another page headed “Is Enough evidence admissible in court?” text stated, “Yes, it can be. DNA evidence is only relevant, and will only be submitted to court, if contact with a particular individual and location are disputed. If the survivor will testify that the DNA sample was correctly collected following the instructions to avoid contamination, then an Enough sample can be admissible* Not even police DNA is absolutely 100% guaranteed admissible in court, neither is an Enough sample. Enough’s DNA kit was developed, and is produced by, the same people that develop and produce kits for the British police.”
We acknowledged that the ad did not explicitly state that the evidence obtained using Enough’s kits was guaranteed to be or would be admissible in court, and that other claims on the website presented Enough as a third reporting option after options one (the police) and two (SARC). However, the website also made references to the kit being a means of supporting deterrence and having an impact on the occurrence of rape, which we acknowledged represented the advertiser’s’ view regarding the purpose of the product, but which we considered added to the impression that the kits would lead to securing the prosecution of perpetrators if used and handled properly. For example, the homepage included the statements “a social movement to prevent rape”, “enough. to end rape”, “Perpetrators are warned survivors can collect DNA and keep for 20 years. ‘it’s the breathalyser of rape’” and a page headed “How does Enough prevent rape?” included the statements “Enough could increase the likelihood of offender identification and prosecution, even in cases where the survivor does not know the assailant. Higher prosecution rates would mean that offenders face real consequences, which serves as a deterrent to others who might consider committing sexual violence.”
Given that wider context, we considered the claims about admissibility were likely to be understood to mean that DNA evidence obtained using Enough’s self-testing kit would, if relevant to a case, if properly collected (given the guidelines for handling kits) and with testimony from the survivor about how the sample was collected, be admissible in a rape trial in certain cases and that the police were already using such evidence.
We considered that the claims also implied that the kits were equivalent to those being used by the police.
We had not seen any evidence that DNA evidence collected using Enough’s kits had ever been deemed admissible in a rape trial. We also considered that even if the kit was manufactured by the same company that produced the swab testing DNA kits used by some or all police forces, potential admissibility was heavily dependent on how the sample was collected and stored, given the forensic guidelines referred to above, and that the use of the kit in a home environment was not therefore equivalent to its use in a police environment.
Furthermore, the asterisk referred to above linked to text stating, “*Full legal opinion by a leading KC Rape Barrister, see here” which linked to another page on the website headed “Is Enough evidence admissible in Court* *Advice from King’s Counsel with experience in the admission of DNA evidence and the prosecution of serious assaults”. The statement was unnamed. We acknowledged Enough's comments that the opinion had been reproduced in full in the ad, but that due to professional restrictions, the KC was not permitted by the Bar Council to publicise their opinion, although we had not seen evidence to support that. The statement included text in bold which stated, “Is Enough evidence admissible in Court? […] If the fact of contact by a particular individual is in dispute, it is conceivable that DNA evidence gathered using Enough could be deployed by the prosecution and deemed relevant and admissible by the court in a limited range of cases. In the first instance, the court would have to be satisfied, by the survivor’s own testimony, that the sample retrieved is genuine, free from contamination and has been collected and (whilst in their custody) retained in accordance with the instructions provided with our packs […]”. We acknowledged that the statement that “it was conceivable” that such evidence could be admissible was more circumspect than the previous claims that the evidence “can be” admissible.
Notwithstanding that, we considered that an opinion from one legal professional in the field, which said that it was “conceivable that” such evidence could be admissible, was not adequate substantiation for the claims as they were likely to be understood by consumers. Furthermore, we had not seen any evidence that the other parties referred to by Enough such as other KCs, a former Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Chief Constable believed that evidence obtained using Enough’s kits could be admissible in court, or the basis for such beliefs if they had expressed them. We considered that the document containing quotes, that Enough said were from certain named and unnamed individuals in the field and which, in any event, did not expressly state that those individuals believed evidence obtained using Enough’s kit would be admissible in court in certain circumstances, was not adequate substantiation for the claims.
In any event, we also understood there was an ongoing public debate regarding the potential admissibility of DNA evidence obtained using self-testing swab kits in sexual assault cases and there was no consensus that evidence obtained from such kits could be admissible in rape trials. We further understood that some key organisations involved in that debate, including the Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians of London and rape survivors support charities, were concerned that not only would such evidence not be admissible, a self-test swab would also impact the results taken from a subsequent Forensic Medical Examination (FME) and could therefore prevent the survivor from securing evidence that was more likely to be admissible. We also understood that on 30 March 2026 the National Centre for Violence Against Women & Girls and Public Protection (NCVPP) and the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) issued a joint Policing Position Statement titled “The use of ‘Self-Swabbing’ in Rape and Serious Sexual Assault”. That statement included the following text: “Evidence gathered outside regulated settings through the use of intimate ‘self-swabbing’ lacks the continuity, integrity, and expert oversight required for robust forensic analysis. Without controlled collection conditions, there is a significant risk of contamination and an increase in the likelihood of a procedural challenge under Section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. While supervised self-swabbing within SARCs may be admissible, samples taken independently and submitted to third-party organisations are unlikely to meet evidential standards, particularly in relation to continuity and compliance with relevant legal provisions.”
We also considered that the other evidence provided, in particular, the research summary document on sexual assault victims’ reporting perceptions and the email chain in which one police officer provided feedback on Enough’s website content in 2024 were not adequate substantiation for the claims.
As above, we considered that consumers would be likely to understand the claims regarding the potential admissibility of evidence from Enough’s testing kits, in the context presented within the ad, including “Yes, it can be [admissible]” and [misconceptions about Enough] “Evidence from Enough is not admissible. This is not correct” to mean that the evidence would be admissible with proper usage and handling. We had not seen evidence that this was the case and we also noted that the KC’s statement in the ad stated, “it is conceivable that [DNA evidence from an Enough kit was admissible]”, which we considered was more circumspect and presented a more conservative view of the likelihood of such evidence being admissible in court.
For those reasons, we considered that the claims in ad (a) regarding the potential admissibility of evidence from Enough’s testing kits in court had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
We understood that the ONS Crime Survey England & Wales year ending December 2024 Report stated that 71,227 rapes were reported to the police in 2024. We also understood that the ONS Crime Survey for England & Wales year ending March 2025, which was published on 4 November 2025, listed the estimated number of rapes (including attempted rapes) as being 60,000 against women and 65,000 in total.
We acknowledged that not all rapes were reported to the police and that the figure of actual rapes was likely to be significantly higher. We further acknowledged that given the prevalence of non-reporting, it would be difficult to ascertain the actual incidence of rapes per year and considered that caution needed to be exercised when making such claims.
We considered the ONS ‘Nature of sexual assault by rape or penetration’ 2020 Report. The heading of the report explained that the figures were based on “Who victims aged 16 to 59 told about rape or assault by penetration (including attempts) experienced since the age of 16 years, by sex, year ending March 2017 and year ending March 2020 CSEW”. The source of the report was listed as the ONS Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). Footnotes to the report stated, “1. If the victim had experienced more than one sexual assault by rape or penetration (including attempts), question was asked of the most recent incident. 2. These data are based on combined data from the year ending March 2017 and the year ending March 2020 to create a larger sample size. These questions are asked every three years in the 'Nature of sexual assault' module. The latest years which include these data are year ending March 2017 and year ending March 2020.” The report listed, by gender, the percentage of victims who had told the police about the rape or assault by penetration (or attempts).
We acknowledged that the report stated that only 19.1% of females and only 15.8% of males had told the police, and that Enough had applied those percentages to the figure for reported rapes to estimate the actual incidence of rapes in 2024. However, we had concerns about that methodology for calculating the actual incidence of rapes. Firstly, the figures included assault by penetration which, we understood, was a different criminal offence to rape. We considered that distinction was important in the context of an ad for a DNA self-testing kit that relied on collecting traces of the perpetrator’s semen, which would only be present following the act of rape rather than assault by penetration. Secondly, the Crime Survey had asked participants about any incidents of rape/assault by penetration (or attempts) since the age of 16 and who they told: it was not based on only incidents that had happened in the previous year and the data could have related to sexual assaults that had occurred decades before. We acknowledged that trends in reporting rapes may change over time and considered it was not therefore appropriate to apply historical reporting data to the number of reported rapes in 2024 to calculate the total number of reported and unreported rapes in 2024.
The 2015 paper provided, which had been published in the European Journal of Criminology, stated “It is estimated that only around 6-18% of rapes in England and Wales are reported to the police” and attributed that estimate to three source studies from 2002, 2007 and 2010. We had not been provided with copies of those studies on which the statistic was based. In any event, we noted that data was historical rather than recent, dating back 15 to 23 years, and was expressed to be an estimation. As above, we considered it was not appropriate to apply historical reporting data to the number of reported rapes in 2024 to calculate a figure for the number of rapes committed in 2024. We also noted that the claims in the ads were expressed in absolute terms rather than expressed as estimations.
For those reasons, we considered that the claims “430,000 rapes a year” and “430,000 rapes in the UK last year” in ad (a), and “Over 400,000 women are raped every year” in ad (c) had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that point, ads (a) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
3. Upheld
We understood that Enough had used the figure published by Cancer Research that 186,000 of women were diagnosed with cancer every year in the UK. We understood that they had applied that figure to the figures quoted in the claims considered in point 2 above about the incidence of rapes to calculate that women/daughters were twice as likely to be raped as be diagnosed with cancer.
For the reasons set out above in point 2, we considered that the figures quoted in the ads regarding the incidence of rapes had not been substantiated. We therefore considered that because those figures underpinned the claims “A woman is twice as likely to be raped as be diagnosed with cancer” in ad (a) and “Our daughters are twice as likely to be raped than get cancer” in ad (b), we concluded those claims also had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current forms. We told This is Enough Ltd t/a Enough not to state or imply that evidence gathered using their self-testing kit was admissible in court unless they held adequate substantiation for those claims. We also told them not to make claims regarding the incidence of rapes or the number of women raped unless they held adequate substantiation for those claims.
