Currently child sexual abuse claims must be brought within three
years of the claimant turning 18 unless the court grants an
extension. For this to happen the victim must prove a fair trial
can proceed, despite a time lapse. This means victims often have
to repeat and relive their traumatic experience before cases
reach the court and often means historic cases cannot progress
due to a lack of evidence.
Government proposals would reverse this burden of proof – meaning
cases would proceed automatically, unless the defendant proves it
is not possible for there to be a fair hearing.
Justice Minister, , said:
Child sexual abuse is utterly abhorrent and we must protect the
interests of these victims and survivors by making the judicial
process as straightforward as possible.
However, we also know limitation periods play an important role
in ensuring defendants' rights to a fair trial, which is why our
proposal to reverse the burden of proof strikes the right
balance. We welcome all views and will consider all responses
carefully.
This consultation follows a commitment to explore options for
reform in this area, in response to recommendations from the
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in 2022.
The Inquiry
heard that a “significant number” of claims are being
rejected because of the time limit. Yet the overwhelming majority
of child sexual abuse claims are brought later than three years,
because it can take “decades for survivors to feel able to
discuss their sexual abuse”.
Research by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Adult Survivors
of Childhood Sexual Abuse found it takes on average 26 years for
victims to disclose sexual abuse.
Following the IICSA findings, the government accepted that
limitation in its current form can act as a barrier to justice in
these instances. It also creates added trauma by forcing victims
to go through an additional stage of applying to have their case
heard – and relive their past experiences – without any guarantee
it will progress.
The proposal to reverse the burden of proof largely removes this
hurdle, while maintaining the limitation period.
Limitation periods are put in place across all civil claims. They
work to protect justice by striking a balance between the rights
of claimants to bring claims and the rights of defendants to a
fair trial. It is a way of acknowledging the difficulty in
establishing the facts long after the event. The quality of
evidence can decline over the years, key witnesses may be
unavailable or have passed away, and crucial documents destroyed.
For these reasons, the government does not support the Inquiry's
recommendation to remove the limitation period entirely. However,
the consultation is seeking wider views on this option.
The 3 year limitation period applies from the date of the alleged
abuse or knowledge of abuse, or from when the child turns 18.
Another government proposal is to put Court of Appeal guidance on
which factors should be considered when removing the time
limitation, formally into statute. This would mean when
determining applications for an extension to time limits judges
would be required to formally take account of the guidance,
ensuring each case is dealt with in exactly the same way.
Notes to editors
- to view and respond to the consultation visit: Limitation law in child
sexual abuse cases - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
- to view the IICSA report visit: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/inquiry/final-report.html
- the following options are discussed in the consultation:
- option 1 - Complete removal of the limitation period in
child sexual abuse cases
- option 2 - Reverse the burden of proof in child sexual
abuse cases so that an action would proceed unless the
defendant satisfies the court that it is not possible
for a fair hearing to proceed or that he/she(the defendant)
would be substantially prejudiced were the action to proceed
- option 3 - Codify existing judicial guidance from the
Court of Appeal on child sexual abuse cases
- option 4 - Allow the reopening of claims that have
already been adjudicated or settled
- option 5 – Extend the definition of abuse (beyond sexual
abuse)
- option 6 – Adjust the factors in Section 33 of the
limitation Act in relation to Child Sexual Abuse Cases
- option 7 - An extended limitation period for child sexual
abuse cases
- option 8 - Procedural Reform
