Government drops controversial legal plans

In a significant reprieve for survivors of child sexual abuse, the Government has decided to abandon controversial legal proposals that would have introduced additional protections for defendants in civil cases. This decision has been met with relief from the legal community, particularly among members of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL). The proposed changes were part of the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently under scrutiny in Parliament, and would have allowed alleged abusers to dismiss claims if they could argue that they would suffer ‘substantial prejudice’ if the cases proceeded.

Kim Harrison, the immediate past president of APIL, expressed the organisation's approval of this turnaround, stating, “We are relieved that the Government has listened to survivors of abuse and campaign organisations like APIL and decided not to go ahead with this totally unwarranted extra protection for defendants.” Harrison emphasised the importance of avoiding unnecessary trauma for victims, highlighting the difficulties many survivors face in coming forward. “Victims of abuse have lived through unimaginable horrors and it takes a lot for survivors to speak out. They should not be forced to endure needless anguish when they turn to the courts for help,” she remarked.

The Government’s amendment comes at a crucial time as the Bill moves forward in the House of Lords, where members will continue to dissect its provisions. APIL had been vocal in its opposition to the proposed ‘substantial prejudice’ defence, arguing it was not part of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse's recommendations. In her statement, Harrison pointed out, “The Government had inexplicably added in this extra protection of ‘substantial prejudice’, which was not part of the detailed recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.”

In addition, the Crime and Policing Bill aims to abolish the three-year time limit for survivors to file civil cases against their abusers, a move endorsed by APIL. Harrison explained that sufficient protections for defendants already exist within the legal framework, asserting, “We lobbied peers explaining that there is already sufficient protection for defendants as courts can dismiss a case if it is not possible for them to receive a fair trial, as is their right under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” She cautioned that the introduction of the contested defence could result in significant delays and, potentially, the collapse of cases, stating, “It would have been completely unjust for survivors of abuse had this extra defence been included in the legislation.”

As the scrutiny of the Bill continues, the decision to drop the legal plans stands as a crucial moment in safeguarding the interests of abuse survivors while balancing the rights of defendants.

Copyright & permissions