IICSA recommendations: A turning point for child abuse survivors?

As a specialist in child abuse cases, I’ve been closely following the developments surrounding the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Today, I want to delve into the inquiry’s recommendations and what they could mean for survivors, our legal system, and society as a whole.

The birth of IICSA: Political manoeuvre or genuine reform?

Let’s start with a bit of context. IICSA was established in 2014, partly in response to a series of high-profile sexual abuse allegations involving public figures. Some might cynically view it as a political hot potato, deftly kicked away by then-Home Secretary Theresa May. However, regardless of its origins, IICSA has produced some crucial recommendations that deserve our attention.

The question now is: are these recommendations being implemented, or are they gathering dust on a Whitehall shelf?

Mandatory reporting: A step we need to take

One of IICSA’s key proposals is the introduction of mandatory reporting for child abuse suspicions. It’s a practice common in many Western countries, but the UK remains an outlier. Why are we dragging our feet on this?

The argument for mandatory reporting is compelling. IICSA heard evidence of professionals failing to report concerns, which, had they been raised, could have spared children from trauma and abuse. The aim is to change professional behaviour, ensuring that concerns are always reported.

However, there’s currently no sign of such a law reaching our statute books. Some suggest that politicians might be wary of the potential consequences for those with safeguarding responsibilities. But I ask you: shouldn’t protecting children be our paramount concern?

Accountability: The elephant in the room

The recent Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 was meant to give victims more influence in the criminal justice system. But here’s the rub – it specifically prevents victims from taking legal action if the Victims Code provisions aren’t followed. It’s a classic case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

This lack of accountability is a significant obstacle for survivors seeking justice. It’s already challenging for victims of child sexual abuse to hold the state to account when they’ve been let down by the system meant to protect them. The Victims and Prisoners Act, unfortunately, does little to address this issue.

Redress schemes: A potential solution?

IICSA recommended a redress scheme to compensate victims as an alternative to civil action. We’ve seen similar schemes work well in Jersey, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. As someone involved in setting-up the two Jersey schemes, I can attest to their value in delivering justice, albeit belatedly and imperfectly.

However, the thorny question is: who foots the bill? It seems naïve to expect taxpayers to shoulder this burden, especially in the current economic climate. Surely, the offenders and those responsible for them should be the ones paying for the harm caused?

Criminal compensation orders: An underutilised tool

Here’s something that really gets under my skin: we already have laws allowing courts to make offenders pay compensation, but they’re rarely used in child sexual abuse cases. The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 requires courts to consider making a criminal compensation order where possible, yet only about 0.02% of these orders relate to child sexual abuse cases.

This statistic is, quite frankly, unforgivable. As someone who provides training in this area, I’m constantly amazed by the lack of awareness of this crucial means of delivering justice. Offenders and those responsible for them should be paying compensation, not taxpayers.

Reforming the Limitation act: A delicate balance

IICSA has proposed significant reforms to the Limitation Act 1980. The recommendations include removing the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by survivors of child sexual abuse and placing the burden on defendants to show that a fair trial is not possible.

These changes could make it easier for survivors to seek justice, but they also raise important questions about ensuring fair trials for defendants. It’s a complex issue that requires careful consideration.

Learning from international examples

Legal jurisdictions in Australia and Scotland, for example, have already implemented similar reforms, providing valuable insights. The Limitation (Child Abuse) Scotland Act 2017, for instance, lifts the three-year time limit for compensation claims arising from childhood abuse.

However, cases like Connellan v Murphy in Australia highlight the complexities involved. In this case, the court granted a stay of proceedings despite the removal of the limitation period, citing the “burdensome and oppressive” nature of defending against allegations from nearly five decades ago.

These cases underscore a crucial point: it’s not just the passage of time that can defeat a claim, but the erosion of evidence quality. As legal professionals, we need to grapple with how to balance the rights of survivors with the practicalities of fair trials after significant time has passed.

The way forward: Ensuring justice for survivors

As we consider implementing IICSA’s recommendations, it’s crucial to learn from the developing case law in jurisdictions that have already reformed their limitation laws. Our goal should be to create a system that gives survivors a fair chance at justice while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

We must remember that there’s no such thing as a perfect fair trial. The question of whether to allow a claim to proceed is nuanced and fact-sensitive. It requires careful consideration of the specific circumstances of each case.

A call for action

If the Government and Opposition are serious about implementing IICSA’s recommendations, they need to pay close attention to these developing legal precedents. Any reform of the Limitation Act 1980 must be crafted to ensure that survivors of child sexual abuse have a genuine opportunity to seek justice.

Throughout all of these discussions, one theme remains constant: the need for greater accountability. For survivors of child sexual abuse, this remains as elusive today as it was when IICSA began its work. As we move forward, addressing this gap must be a priority in any reforms to our legal system.

We’re committed to supporting survivors and advocating for meaningful change. We believe that by working together – legal professionals, policymakers, and society at large – we can create a system that truly serves the interests of justice and protects the most vulnerable among us.

What are your thoughts on these proposed changes? How can we better support survivors while ensuring a fair legal process? Let’s keep this important conversation going. After all, it’s only through open dialogue and concerted action that we can hope to make real progress in this crucial area of law and social justice.