Law change risks justice for victims

Plans to introduce new legal defences for alleged abusers in child sexual abuse cases could further traumatise victims and impede their pursuit of justice
The proposed legislation in Parliament aims to allow defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to seek dismissal of the proceedings by demonstrating that they would face ‘substantial prejudice’ if the case were to continue. Lawyers, including Kim Harrison from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), have expressed grave concerns over these changes, arguing that they could exacerbate the suffering of already vulnerable survivors. Harrison stated, “The Crime and Policing Bill would scrap the current three-year time limit for survivors of abuse to bring a civil case for damages against their abusers, which is long overdue. But inexplicably the Government has added an unwarranted provision that would give defendants an extra layer of protection.”
Harrison pointed out that the Bill already provides adequate safeguards for defendants, as courts are empowered to dismiss claims when a fair trial is unfeasible, in accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She emphasised that “this unnecessary extra defence of ‘substantial prejudice’ was not part of the detailed recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), unlike the crucial measures to lift the time limit in England and Wales.” This raises questions about the rationale for including this new defence, particularly since there has been no clear explanation of what ‘substantial prejudice’ would entail.
The repercussions of this change could be severe. As Harrison noted, “it will cause unnecessary delays to cases and lead to the collapse of others, causing further trauma to survivors of abuse who have already lived through unimaginable horrors as a child.” She has tirelessly represented many survivors at the national inquiry and is now urging peers in the House of Lords to reconsider the implications of this legislation ahead of its first debate on 16 October. Harrison concluded, “Peers must reject this overzealous extra defence which will make it even harder for survivors of abuse to receive justice.”