Historic child sexual abuse claims: recent case law and amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill

We consider recent amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, how the law will change the current legal landscape, and analyse the case of AB v Leicestershire CC [17.02.26].

Overview

In October 2022, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) published its final report setting out recommendations to protect future generations of children from sexual abuse. This included a recommendation to remove the three-year limitation period that applies to personal injury claims arising from child sexual abuse.

The government published its response to the consultation on limitation law in child sexual abuse cases in England and Wales on 5 February 2025 and agreed the three-year limitation period should be removed. Primary legislation is required to make these changes.

Crime and Policing Bill

Through the Crime and Policing Bill 2025, the government announced plans for legislation to bring this recommendation into effect. The Bill was first published in spring 2025. The Bill is currently in the report stage in the House of Lords, but is expected to pass this year.

It was decided that the burden of proof for the purposes of limitation would shift to defendants, and a legal action would proceed unless the defendant satisfies the court that:

• It is not possible for a fair hearing to take place.
• The defendant would be substantially prejudiced were the action to proceed.

On 13 February 2026, an amendment was made to the Bill removing the second ground for dismissal based on ‘substantial prejudice’. This was done following concerns raised during committee debates about the concept and following hearing testimony from victims and survivors – it was considered that the retention of the ‘fair hearing’ ground implements the IICSA recommendation and appropriately safeguards the defendants’ rights at trial. 

The question for the courts, if the wording passes into legislation as it is, will be
how to interpret that phrase.  

Under the current regime, the defendant is required to undertake extensive investigations and set out what evidence they have been able to find, if any, and explain how they have been prejudiced in view of the delay. That requirement is unlikely to change. However, the extent/reason for the delay will no longer be a relevant factor. 

AB v Leicestershire County Council [17.02.26]

In the recent High Court decision of AB v Leicestershire CC, Mr Justice Turner refused to allow the claims to proceed under s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980.

This case concerned historical child physical and sexual abuse allegations for three claimants dating back to the 1980s. Due to the passage of time, the primary limitation periods had expired over 30 years ago. There was a preliminary trial on the issue of limitation. 

Both alleged perpetrators (Janner and Beck) are deceased. Beck had been convicted of 17 offences but the Judge said that this did not mean the accounts of the claimants would be automatically accepted. 

The Judge also said the passage of time had meant that it was harder to obtain evidence from staff or former residents about any specific interactions between the claimants and the perpetrators. Neither party called any witnesses. It is unclear whether the Judge’s decision would have been different if evidence had been called from staff or former residents about specific interactions. 

With regards to the death of Janner, the Judge noted that he had not been convicted of any offences, although there had been police investigations and enquiries.  The Court made clear that it would not decide on what Janner had or had not done but felt that the passage of time had made that difficult, and therefore there was prejudice to the defendant. 

Mr Justice Turner concluded that it could not be said that the strength of two of the claimants’ evidence “was such as to mean that the potential impact of the delay would have made little difference to the outcome” of their claims against the defendant.

The Judge further concluded that it would not be equitable for any of the claims to proceed, and that was due to a number of factors as set out in the judgment. 

Referring to proposed legislative changes within the Crime and Policing Bill, the Judge observed that “the effect of which, if brought into law, would impose stricter limits on the circumstances in which claims relating to sexual abuse on child victims could be defeated by a defence of limitation.” However, the Judge added:

“As presently drafted, however, it does not apply to any claim which has been determined prior to the commencement of the new provisions. Accordingly, the issue before me must be decided in accordance with the law as it presently stands and no purpose would be served by my speculating on what form my analysis might otherwise have taken.”

The Judge did however refer to the comments in respect of “fair trial” made by Lord Brown in A v Hoare [2008].

Comment

The judgment builds on previous authorities. The case demonstrates the kind of evidential situation that leads to the striking out of a claim. Defendants should be wary not to focus solely on the death of the perpetrator, and to consider the entire picture including the credibility and cogency of both parties’ evidence and the strength of witness evidence available. 

The death of a named perpetrator in Scotland will not create that degree of prejudice, if the abuse complained of was part of an overall and generally known regime in a care setting, which other living witnesses can speak to.

Parties may want to give consideration to pleading their cases under the current regime, as well as under the new proposed legislation, in preparation for the legislative changes coming into force.