Under the Crime and Policing Bill, due for its second debate in the House of Lords this week, alleged abusers could get the case against them dismissed by convincing a judge they would suffer ‘substantial prejudice’ if proceedings were to go ahead. This creates an extra legal route for defendants to have the proceedings dropped.
However, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) warns the extra defence is ‘unnecessary’ and was not part of the detailed recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). APIL says the government has not provided any justification for including the new defence or any explanation of what ‘substantial prejudice’ would entail.
Kim Harrison, former APIL president, who represented survivors at the IICSA, said the 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. 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.’
Harrison, who is head of abuse law, human rights and public inquiries at Slater and Gordon, said there is no need for the extra defence since defendants are already protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Art 6, a judge can dismiss a claim if it is not possible for the defendant to receive a fair trial.
‘Peers must reject this overzealous extra defence which will make it even harder for survivors of abuse to receive justice,’ Harrison said.
Under current law in England and Wales, child abuse survivors must bring civil claims within three years of turning 18 years old—despite it taking an average of 24 to 27 years to be able to talk about it. Scrapping this time limit was one of the IICSA’s key recommendations.
