Impact assessment

Equalities impact assessment: Ministry of Justice

Published 29 September 2026

Introduction

This document records the analysis undertaken by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in the design and development of the MoJ measures in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (the 2026 Act). The analysis considers the impact of the measures against the statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The MoJ measures in the 2026 Act will:

1. Introduce a new offence of administering etc. harmful substances (including by spiking);

2. Introduce a broader offence for encouraging or assisting serious self-harm;

3. Introduce new offences of “taking” an intimate image without consent, installing, adapting, preparing or maintaining equipment with the intention of enabling the commission of one of these offences; and copying without consent an intimate image shared temporarily;

4. Replace the offence of sexual penetration of a corpse with a broader offence of sexual activity with a corpse;

5. Expand the scope of the existing offence of exposure;

6. Amend the existing offences of sexual activity in the presence of a child or person with a mental disorder;

7. Criminalise the detention of a child outside the UK without the appropriate consent;

8. Ensure that the terrorism sentence with a fixed licence period in Northern Ireland is handed down consistently with the equivalent sentence in England and Wales;

9. Extend the criteria for polygraph testing;

10. Add the offence of breaching a foreign travel restriction order (FTRO) to the terrorism sentencing, release and management regime;

11. Introduce a new requirement for offenders serving community and suspended sentences to notify probation/Youth Offending Teams of changes to their names or personal contact information;

12. Repeal section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 in relation to shoplifting;

13. Make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences;

14. Introducing a Presumption in Favour of Anonymity for Firearms Officers; and,

15. Remove the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in respect of their abuse while ensuring the express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants (rather than claimants as at present) to show that a fair trial is not possible.

16. Decriminalise abortion offences for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies

17. Introduce statutory pardons for women convicted of abortion offences when acting in relation to their own pregnancies

18. Replace the offence of intercourse with an animal with a broader offence capturing additional forms of sexual activity with animals, including sexual activity with dead animals

19. Sexual offences against children under 16

20. Introduce a new offence of sharing a semen-defaced image without consent

21. Introduce new offences of possessing or publishing pornography portraying sex between certain family members

22. Introduce new offences of possessing or publishing pornography depicting strangulation or suffocation

23. Introduce new offences of possessing or publishing pornography depicting sexual activity where one person is, or is pretending to be, under 16

24. Introduce an image deletion order

25. Create a duty on coroners to notify Ofcom of child deaths and request a data preservation notices in respect of the child’s use of specified online services.

Equality duties

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 places a duty on Ministers and the Department, when exercising their functions, to have ‘due regard’ to the need to:

• Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other prohibited conduct under the Equality Act 2010;
• Advance equality of opportunity between different groups (those who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not); and
• Foster good relations between different groups (those who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not).

The protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.. The protected characteristic of ‘marriage and civil partnership’ is relevant only when considering the first limb of the duty. We have included analysis on each protected characteristic where relevant.

The Government’s assessment is that none of the MoJ measures in the Crime and Policing Act ) are directly or indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. They apply in the same way to all individuals and do not treat people less favourably because of their protected characteristics. Where they potentially put those with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those without, this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Intimate images (including deletion orders)

Introduction

The taking of intimate images without consent is highly intrusive, humiliating and distressing. It is important that our legal framework deals effectively with this behaviour, so that victims have the protection they deserve.

The behaviour targeted by the new offences in the Act is the intentional taking of an intimate photograph or film of a person without their consent, whether by the use of hidden means (e.g. spy cameras) where the victim is unaware, or where the victim is aware their image has been taken. In addition, we are targeting those who install, adapt, prepare or maintain equipment with the intention of enabling either themselves or someone else to take an intimate image without consent. Finally, we are targeting those who copy, without consent, an intimate image that someone has only shared temporarily.

Some of the behaviour of taking of an intimate image without consent may in certain circumstances already be caught by existing offences, for example by the voyeurism offence at section 67(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the 2003 Act), but there are several limitations with the application of these offences.

The Law Commission, in their July 2022 Report, Intimate Image Abuse (the 2022 Report), recommended a package of offences to update the laws relating to taking and sharing intimate images without consent. The new offences in the 2026 Act will strengthen the law in relation to the taking of intimate images without consent and the installation of equipment to do so. In addition, it will protect victims whose temporarily shared intimate images have been copied without their consent. Consent to view a person in an intimate state temporarily is not consent to view permanently. Sharing offences were previously introduced via the Online Safety Act 2023, and offences for creating and requesting the creation of a purported intimate image (i.e. deepfake) were introduced via the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Additionally, the Act introduces a new image deletion order targeting offenders who retain access to intimate images after conviction for an intimate image or related offence.

Policy summary

The Government has introduced further provisions in the 2026 Act, largely based on the Law Commission’s recommendations to tackle the taking and recording of intimate images without consent and related behaviour. The 2026 Act will insert the following into the 2003 Act: three new offences to criminalise the non-consensual taking or recording of an intimate image; provisions to criminalise someone who installs, adapts, prepares or maintains equipment and does so with the intent of enabling themselves or another to commit one of the three offences of taking or recording an intimate image without consent; and a new offence of copying, without consent, an intimate image that was only shared temporarily. The 2026 Act will also make some changes to the sharing offences inserted into the 2003 Act by the Online Safety Act 2023 to ensure effectiveness and consistency across the full range of intimate image offences. These will extend to and apply in England and Wales.

The 2026 Act will also extend the time limit for prosecuting summary only intimate image offences from six months to a period that is both within three years of the commission of the offence and within six months of the date when the prosecutor had sufficient evidence to prosecute. This will give prosecutors more time to seek justice for victims, who may not become aware of the intimate image abuse for some time.

The Government is also introducing a bespoke image deletion order, enabling courts to order the offender to take steps to delete and destroy all copies of an image related to a specified offence and any other relevant images of the same victim in the offender’s possession or control. This order will be available upon conviction for an intimate image abuse offence, the offence of sharing semen-defaced images or the breastfeeding voyeurism offence. Breach of this order will be a criminal offence.

Methodology and data analysis

As a result of rapidly developing technological advancements, deeply intimate or sexual images can now easily be taken non-consensually with new discreet filming or recording devices, including mobile phones and easily hidden or concealed digital image recording devices.

The 2022 Report highlighted that the scale of sharing digital images in general is huge, with research suggesting that in 2021, 240,000 photos were shared on Facebook and two million on Snapchat every minute.

The problem of abuse appears to be growing. In 2024, the Revenge Porn Helpline provided support in 22,275 cases of reported non-consensual intimate images, which was a 20.9% increase from the year prior.

The non-consensual taking of intimate photographs or films can cause great distress to any victim and is a significant and upsetting invasion of personal privacy. Whilst the law is equipped in many cases to deal with such behaviour, for example under offences that deal with voyeurism and “upskirting” (sections 67 and 67A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003), the Law Commission’s review identified several limitations with the application of these offences. These offences do not, for example, capture the full range of perpetrator motivations.

The existing law in this sensitive area consists of a “patchwork” of criminal offences created in response to developments in IT and offending methods. A modern and consistent set of offences is needed to ensure the law is fully able to deal with this behaviour and that victims have both the protection they deserve and confidence in the law when coming forward to report such abuse.

Separately, reports show that the current framework for depriving offenders of intimate images of their victims after conviction (deprivation orders) is not seen as proportionate or effective. This can result in offenders retaining access to these images after conviction, leaving victims in fear that they may be shared again.

Age

Within this process we have considered the impact the creation of the new offences and order may have on young people. We are alive to concerns about the impact of intimate image abuse on children, both as perpetrators and victims, and the need to protect them from the risk of discriminating against them through our legislation. A series of Freedom of Information requests, submitted by the media literacy charity The Student View, revealed that 36 police forces in England and Wales collectively received reports relating to 541 child victims of the disclosure of private sexual images without consent. A further 360 children and young people were revealed to be suspects, suggesting that children are often being victimised by other children.^{[footnote 1]},^{[footnote 2]}

In terms of the age groups of the victims of intimate image offending, the year after the disclosure offence was introduced in England and Wales, 36% of victims were 19 or younger and 39% were between 20 and 29.^{[footnote 3]} Additionally, in the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative’s survey, 27% of individuals whose private sexual images were shared without consent were between 18 and 22 years old.^{[footnote 4]},^{[footnote 5]}

In particular, we recognise the risks of over-criminalising young people who naively engage in intimate image abuse believing it to be a joke, due to peer pressure, or without fully understanding the implications of sexual harm, which may mean that these offences risk having a disproportionate impact on children and young people. These concerns are most acute with acts of sharing and copying, but also apply with acts of taking or installing. However, we have seen in the 2022 Report sufficient evidence of the serious harm caused to victims by these behaviours, and the prevalence of intimate image abuse among children, that we continue to believe the offences and order should apply regardless of age. The youth justice system is designed to mitigate the risks associated with children engaging with the criminal justice system.

Race

The Law Commission’s initial consultation paper also noted that women and minority groups are most often the targets of intimate image abuse and that this could result in their subordination and marginalisation becoming further entrenched in society.

Sex

Both women and men could be the victims of the behaviour targeted by the offences, but we predict that the majority of victims will be women. The Revenge Porn Helpline for example reported that, in 2021, 75% of calls received were from women victims, with the perpetrators reported by them as predominantly male.

The offences are based on the conduct and intent of the perpetrator and not on sex (or any other protected characteristic). However, evidence indicates that intimate image abuse is most often (though not always) perpetrated by men against women. It is therefore likely that the new offences and order will indirectly have a greater positive impact on women who are more likely than men to be victims of this behaviour.

Whilst men are more likely to be the perpetrators of these new offences and will therefore be indirectly impacted to a greater degree, we do not consider that the provisions will amount to unlawful indirect discrimination. This behaviour is harmful regardless of the sex of the perpetrator or victim. The offences and order themselves are similarly sex neutral, and we therefore consider the measures, applying equally to male and female perpetrators are a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting victims from criminal behaviour.

Sexual orientation and gender reassignment

The Law Commission’s initial consultation paper noted that for LGBTQ people the abuse of intimate images, for example the disclosure or threat to disclose, could have particularly severe consequences, especially if the victim felt unable to be “out” (e.g. open about their LGBTQ identity) with their family, friends or community.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of disability, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of defendants and potential victims likely to be affected.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a policy would result in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. The offences will apply to all perpetrators and victims, regardless of their protected characteristics. Similarly, the new image deletion order will apply to all perpetrators convicted of intimate image abuse, sharing semen-defaced images and breastfeeding voyeurism. As a result, this measure does not involve direct discrimination within the meaning of the EA because it does not treat people less favourably due to their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not, and it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Our initial assessment is that these changes are not indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the EA as explained below.

Both women and men could be the victims and perpetrators of the behaviour targeted by the offences, but we predict that the majority of victims will be women and the majority of perpetrators will be men.

The Revenge Porn Helpline for example reported that, in 2022, 78% of all voyeurism calls received were from female victims, compared to 17% male victims. The victim was also female in 71% calls relating to intimate images shared without consent, with over 81% perpetrators reported to be male (The Revenge Porn Helpline Annual Report 2023).

The Law Commission’s initial consultation paper (Intimate Image Abuse - A consultation paper, 26 Feb 2021), also noted that that women and minority groups are most often the targets of intimate image abuse and that this could result in their subordination and marginalisation becoming further entrenched in society.

In addition, it highlighted that for LGBTQ people the abuse of intimate images, for example the disclosure or threat to disclose, could have particularly severe consequences, especially if the victim felt unable to be “out” with their family, friends or community.

Given that women may be more likely than men to be victims of this behaviour, it is therefore likely that the new offences and order will have a greater positive impact on women. In turn, given that men are more likely than women to be the perpetrators of these new offences, it is therefore likely that the new offences and order will have a greater negative impact on men, through convictions under the new offences and for any breaches of image deletion orders. This potentially puts men at a particular disadvantage.

However, we do not consider that the provisions will amount to unlawful indirect discrimination. This behaviour is harmful regardless of the sex of the perpetrator or victim. Overall, these measures are considered to be a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting victims from this behaviour.

Within this process we have considered the impact the new offences may have on young people. We are alive to concerns about the impact of intimate image abuse on children, both as perpetrators and victims, and the risk of discriminating against them through our legislation. We recognise the risks of over-criminalising young people who naively engage in intimate image abuse believing it to be a joke, due to peer pressure, or without fully understanding the implications of sexual harm, which may mean that these offences risk having a disproportionate impact on children and young people. These concerns are most acute with acts of sharing and copying but also apply with acts of taking or installing and cases of failing to comply with an image deletion order. However, there is sufficient evidence in the Law Commission’s 2022 Report Intimate Image Abuse of the serious harm caused to victims by these behaviours, and the prevalence of intimate image abuse among children. We therefore believe the offences and order should apply regardless of age. The youth justice system is designed to mitigate the risks associated with children engaging with the criminal justice system.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability for perpetrators and victims. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators and victims with disabilities.

Advancing equality of opportunity

We do not believe that these measures specifically advance the equality of opportunity for people with protected characteristics, but the creation of these offences aims to protect people from this harmful behaviour and should have a positive impact on them.

Fostering good relations

We do not consider that these proposals would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Encouraging or assisting serious self-harm

Introduction

Encouragement of suicide or self-harm falling short of suicide is a matter of great concern. It is already an offence, under the Suicide Act 1961, to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting another person to take, or attempt to take, their own life with the intent that they should do so. In their Modernising Communications Offences report, published in July 2021, the Law Commission considered how the criminal law might best tackle encouragement of self-harm.^{[footnote 6]} Recognising that any criminal law solution in this complex area must be properly constrained to avoid criminalising vulnerable people who share their experiences of self-harm or those offering them support, the Commission recommended a narrow offence, modelled largely on the Suicide Act offence, that targets the deliberate encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm.

Policy summary

The Online Safety Act 2023 gave partial effect to the Law Commission recommendation by introducing a new offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm by means of verbal or electronic communications, publications or correspondence (“the communications offence”).

To give full effect to the recommendation, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 will repeal the communications offence (in relation to England and Wales) and replace it with a broader offence that covers encouraging or assisting serious self-harm both by means of communication, and in any other way, including, for example, direct assistance such as providing bladed articles with which to self-harm (“the broader offence”). The broader offence will be consistent in this regard with the Suicide Act 1961 offence which is not limited to encouraging or assisting suicide by means of communication.

Methodology and data analysis

In assessing the equalities impacts on defendants, the most comparable offence to this provision is the communications offence under the Online Safety Act. However, there is limited data on this offence, as it only came into effect on 31 January 2024. The existing offence of ‘intentionally doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting suicide or attempted suicide of another’ under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 serves as a proxy for the broader offence. However, due to the limited number of cases, it is not possible to derive equalities trends from it. To assess potential equalities impacts, we have therefore used coercive and controlling behaviour (‘CCB’) as the next best available proxy. While it is not a particularly close match, there are similar characteristics in the offending behaviour.

Our analysis also illustrates the general prevalence of self-harm to demonstrate the potential impact of the broader offence on victims. While there is some evidence on the prevalence of self-harm, accurately estimating it remains challenging due to underreporting. Additionally, collecting evidence on individuals who have been encouraged or assisted to self-harm, and therefore assessing the impact of this broader offence on protected characteristics, is also difficult.

Sources of information

The main source of information used for analysis on defendant equalities impacts is the MOJ’s Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly – Accredited Official Statistics and our analysis is based on the most recent data available up to June 2023. The latest census with detailed ethnicity statistics in the UK is the 2021 Census, which was published in December 2022. Detailed data on Crown Court and Magistrates’ outcomes is only available for three of the nine protected characteristics – age, sex, and race. Due to limitations in data collection, we are not currently able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on other protected characteristics.

Our analysis of the impact on victims is based on data from recent studies on the prevalence and risk factors associated with self-harm, with sources provided in the footnotes.

Availability of data

Data is presented where known, therefore where an individual’s sex, race, or age is not stated or unknown, they are omitted from analysis.

Sex

When looking into cases proceeded against in relation to CCB there is a significantly higher proportion of male defendants to females. Of the 826 cases proceeded against in the year ending 2023, 93.8% were male defendants and 2.5% female.

In relation to the impact on victims, one study of the prevalence of self-reported non-suicidal self-harm (NSSH) from 2000-2014^{[footnote 7]} found increases in prevalence in both sexes and across age groups, most notably in women and girls aged 16-24. Male participants and those aged 16-34 years were less likely to have contact with health services than were female participants and older people. Similarly, a recent study on young people aged 13 to 15 reported that prevalence was greater among girls (22.7%) than boys (8.5%); the figures for those aged 17 to 19 were 21.5% for girls and 9.7% for boys.^{[footnote 8]}

Race

Across England and Wales, the proportion of white individuals that make up the majority of the population is at 81.7%. In relation to CCB, where ethnicity was known, the proportion of white defendants proceeded against was the greatest, at 66.59%. The proportion of those from other ethnic backgrounds who were proceeded against is relatively similar to their representation in the general population of England and Wales. For instance, Asian individuals make up 6.17% of those proceeded against, compared to 9.3% of the total population. Asian people as a proportion of those proceeded against (6.17%) relative to the total population (9.3%). Similarly, Black individuals constitute 3.6% of defendants and 4% of the population, while those that identify as ‘other’ account for 1.08% of defendants and 2.1% of the population). Additionally, individuals identifying as mixed represented 2.07% of defendants and 2.9% of the population.

In relation to the potential impact on victims of the broader offence, a recent study on the prevalence of self-harm on young people aged 13 to 15 reported that prevalence was more than twice as prevalent in white children (16.5%) compared to South Asian (6.9%) or Black children (7.6%).^{[footnote 9]}

Age

In relation to those proceeded against in relation to CCB, adult age groups make up the highest proportion at 65.6%. Young adults made up 3.75% and children represented 0.4% of those proceeded against.

When looking at potential victims of the encouragement or assistance of self-harm, the prevalence of self-harm is difficult to estimate as it is often unreported. Self-harm can occur at any age, but a recent national study reported that 7.3% of girls aged 11 to 16, and 3.6% of boys aged 11 to 16, had self-harmed or attempted suicide at some point. The figures for those aged 17 to19 were 21.5% for girls and 9.7% for boys. There is increasing evidence of links between internet usage and self-harm, with one study finding that, among self-harm hospital presentations, the prevalence of suicide and self-harm related internet use was 8.4% among adults and 26% among children and adolescents.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, or sexual orientation. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of defendants and potential victims likely to be affected. ^{[footnote 10][footnote 11][footnote 12]}

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

We assess that the broader offence will not be directly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. It will apply in the same way to all perpetrators and victims. The new offence is not considered to result in people being treated less favourably because of their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

As indicated above, evidence suggests that younger people, particularly young women, are more likely to self-harm. Moreover, there is evidence that self-harm is more prevalent amongst white children. However, evidence of the prevalence of self-harm amongst those with other protected characteristics is less clear and it is difficult to estimate the specific impact of the broader offence on particular groups. It is possible that women are more likely than men to be victims of this behaviour and therefore the broader offence may have a greater positive impact on women.

Conversely, we know that, in general, men commit more offences than women^{[footnote 13]}, which is further evidenced by the higher proportion of male individuals proceeded against for CCB. Men are therefore more likely to be disproportionately impacted as offenders. To the extent that men (or those with any other protected characteristic) are particularly disadvantaged by this broader offence, we do not consider that this will amount to unlawful indirect discrimination. Overall, we consider the policy is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting vulnerable people from deliberate encouragement to self-harm.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability for perpetrators and victims. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators and victims with disabilities.

Advancing equality of opportunity

Both perpetrators and victims of the broader offence could be people with any of the protected characteristics. The broader offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm would not specifically advance the equality of opportunity for particular groups. However, the creation of the broader offence aims to protect all people (regardless of their protected characteristics) from this harmful behaviour and should positively impact them.

Fostering good relations

Fostering good relations seeks to reduce prejudice and increase understanding between different groups of people with protected characteristics. We do not consider that the broader offence would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective. The policy rationale behind this change is to ensure that the criminal law is adequately equipped to protect individuals from those who intend to encourage or assist another person to seriously self-harm. It aims to bring to justice those who intentionally encourage or assist others in self-harming, while ensuring that vulnerable individuals who have experienced self-harm are not disproportionately affected. The Government therefore believes that this policy will positively impact victims and deter the encouragement and assistance of self-harm both online and more broadly. Consequently, we anticipate that it will enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system and reinforce the perception that these matters are taken seriously.

Sexual activity with a corpse

Introduction

Section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 criminalises the ‘sexual penetration of a corpse’, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. It does not criminalise any other sexual activity with a corpse. Given the impact that both penetrative and non-penetrative activity with a corpse can have on the family of the deceased, the government intends to replace the existing offence with a broader offence of ‘sexual activity with a corpse’. This will (i) raise the maximum penalty of penetrative activity to 7 years’ imprisonment; and (ii) expand the criminal law to capture non-penetrative sexual touching with a corpse.

Policy summary

These provisions replace the existing offence at section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 with a broader offence of ‘sexual activity with a corpse’ with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment where the offence involved penetration, and capturing non-penetrative sexual touching with a corpse within the criminal law.

Methodology and data analysis

In 2021, following the arrest and conviction of David Fuller for the murder of two young women and shocking sexual offences, several campaigners including the victims’ families (supported by Centre for Women’s Justice), MPs and other members of the public have put forward the view that 2 year-maximum penalty for the section 70 (‘sexual penetration of a corpse’) does not adequately reflect the harm inflicted on the families of the deceased.

In response to this, the then Secretary of State for Justice committed to looking at whether the maximum penalty for section 70 was appropriate.

In addition to this work an independent inquiry commissioned by the then Health Secretary is currently underway to investigate Mr Fuller’s offending, focusing on events which took place in mortuaries in Kent. On 28 November 2023, the independent inquiry published Phase 1 report which stated that the victims’ families considered the sentence that Fuller received was too lenient. Since then, an interim report on Phase 2 has been published, and a final report to be published in 2025.

This is a rare offence. In 2022, there were 12 convictions. Section 70 was the principal offence in only two of the convictions; the remaining 10 were for other serious offences, with s70 included as one count. There are no new cases reported in 2023. The lack of cases and available sentencing remarks means that there is limited data and evidence available on this offence and can also be difficult to draw comparisons with other offences.

Age

From the evidence above, we have identified the likely impact of this policy on the protected characteristics of age in that it targets any age.

Sex

From the evidence above, we have identified the likely impacts of this policy on the protected characteristic of sex in that it targets mainly women based on the victims who have been affected. However, whilst we are aware of the adverse impacts on the victim’s family members, we have no reliable data to determine what these further impacts might be but we will continue to monitor for any such impacts as the policy evolves.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of disability, gender reassignment, marriage, and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, or sexual orientation. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of defendants and potential victims likely to be affected.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

The replacement offence will apply to all perpetrators, regardless of their protected characteristics. As a result, this measure does not involve direct discrimination within the meaning of the 2010 Act because it does not treat people unfavourably due to their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination arises where a policy, practice or provision is applied in the same way for everyone but results in those who share a protected characteristic suffering a particular disadvantage when compared with those who do not share the protected characteristic.

We have however considered that men are more likely to be the perpetrators of this conduct and will therefore be more likely to be adversely impacted through convictions under the new offence. We do not, however, consider that the proposals will be likely to result in a particular disadvantage to perpetrators that cannot be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Engaging in sexual activity with a corpse is harmful to both the family of the deceased and wider society and we therefore consider that the measure is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting the dignity of deceased persons and preventing harm to their families and wider society.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability for perpetrators. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators with disabilities.

Advancing equality of opportunity

The Government does not believe that these measures specifically advance the equality of opportunity for people with protected characteristics, but the creation of these offences aims to protect people from this harmful behaviour.

Fostering good relations

We do not consider that these proposals would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Expanding the scope of offences related to sexual activity in the presence of a child or a person with mental disorder

Introduction

The Government is amending the criminal law to capture a broader range of culpable behaviour where a person engages in sexual activity in the presence of a child or a person with a mental disorder.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) contains a range of offences (sections 11, 18, 32, 36 and 40) that capture a range of situations where a person (A) intentionally engages in sexual activity and for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, they do so in the presence of a child or a person with a mental disorder (B) or in a place from which they can be observed by B, knowing or believing that B is aware of the activity, or intending that B should be aware of the activity.

The Government has introduced provisions to amend these offences to remove the requirement for A to know or believe that B is aware, or intend that B should be aware, of the activity, and ensure that intentional sexual activity in the presence or observation of a child or person with mental disorder for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification is an offence, regardless of whether A knows or believes that B is aware, or intends that B should be aware, that A is engaging in the activity.

These reforms are a direct response to concerns expressed by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service who have made us aware of difficulties in prosecuting a number of cases involving this harmful type of sexually motivated behaviour where it was not clear that that the perpetrator knew, believed, or intended that the child or mentally disordered person was aware of the sexual activity.

Policy summary

The offences will continue to extend to and apply in England and Wales. The policy change will ensure that where a person engages in sexual activity in the presence or observation of a child or a person with mental disorder for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification regardless of whether the person knows or believes that the victim is aware or intends that the victim should be aware that the person is engaging in the activity.

Methodology and data analysis

A National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) representative, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and Devon & Cornwall Police raised concerns specifically in relation to the scope of section 11 of the SOA 2003 (‘engaging in the sexual activity in the presence of a child’) to the Home Office and Ministry of Justice.

The requirement in section 11(1)(c)(ii) that A know or believe that B is aware, or intend that B should be aware, that A is engaging in the activity, has led to difficulties in a small number of cases where there was insufficient evidence that A had the requisite knowledge, belief or intent. This has led to concerns that police are unable to appropriately deal with some individuals who pose a sexual risk to children due to the specific nature of their harmful activity not being covered by the existing legislation.

As set out above, each of the offences currently require the Prosecution to prove that A acted knowing or believing that B was aware, or intending that B should be aware, that A was engaging in sexual activity. Therefore, where this cannot be proved the offence will not be made out. One example that was provided included a scenario involving a child who appeared to be asleep when the suspect began to masturbate whilst standing next to the child’s bed; the suspect was not prosecuted however as they ceased their activity when the child stirred, indicating they were conscious, which suggested that the perpetrator did not have the necessary knowledge, belief or intent around the child’s awareness.

After further consideration, the same concerns were raised regarding the intent elements of sections 18, 32, 36 and 40 of the SOA 2003, which also needed to be revised to capture the additional culpable behaviour.

The Government agreed that sections 11, 18, 32, 36 and 40 of the SOA 2003needed to be amended to capture the circumstances where a person intentionally engages in sexual activity in the presence of a child or a person with mental disorder for the purpose of sexual gratification but where they do so without the knowledge or belief that the child or person with mental disorder is aware of the activity, or an intent that they should be aware.

Age

From the evidence, we can identify the impacts of this policy on the protected characteristic of age can affect both children and adults with a mental disorder. The police have identified cases where this has affected children and, therefore, we believe this policy can affect both adults and children. We do not currently have data on adult cases.

Disability

This offence will impact children and persons with a mental disorder which means there will likely have an impact of this policy on the protected characteristic of disability, however, there is a lack of data available.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of gender reassignment, marriage, and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, race, sex or sexual orientation. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of defendants and potential victims likely to be affected.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

We assess that the offences will not be directly discriminatory against anyone within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. They will apply in the same way to all perpetrators and victims. The new offences are not considered to result in people being treated less favourably because of their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination arises where a policy, practice or provision is applied in the same way for everyone but results in those who share a protected characteristic suffering a particular disadvantage when compared with those who do not share the protected characteristic.

We know that, in general, men commit more sexual offences than women. Therefore, men may be more likely to be the perpetrators of these new offences and may therefore be more likely to be negatively impacted through convictions under the new offences, potentially putting them at a particular disadvantage.

However, we do not consider that the provisions will amount to unlawful indirect discrimination. This behaviour is harmful regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, and we therefore believe the measures, applying equally to male and female perpetrators are an appropriate and proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting vulnerable groups of people.

As children and adults with mental disorders are the victims of these offences, the protected characteristics of age and disability will be particularly impacted in a positive way.

We believe that, though this is a small change to the law, it will increase protection for people with those protected characteristics.

Advancing equality of opportunity

As set out above, perpetrators could be people with any of the protected characteristics, but we think it likely that the majority of the perpetrators of this behaviour will be men. We do not believe that these measures specifically advance the equality of opportunity for particular groups, but the creation of these offences aims to protect people from this harmful behaviour.

Fostering good relations

We do not consider that these proposals would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Exposure

Introduction

The Government is amending the exposure offence at Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (“2003 Act”) to criminalise those who expose their genitals with the intent to cause the victim humiliation, or where they are acting for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification whilst being reckless as to whether the person who sees their genitals will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation. Currently, a person only commits this offence if they intentionally expose their genitals and intend that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

This amendment is being made to align the elements of the offence more closely with Section 66A of the 2003 Act, the offence of “sending etc photograph or film of genitals” (colloquially known as the “cyberflashing offence”). The creation of this offence followed recommendations made by the Law Commission in their review ‘Modernising Communications Offences’.

Unlike the Section 66 offence, Section 66A criminalises those that send or give a photograph or film of any person’s genitals and intend that the recipient will see the genitals and be caused alarm, distress or humiliation, or sends or gives a photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and is reckless as to whether the recipient will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation.

Adding these additional elements to offence at section 66 would ensure consistency between these analogous offences and strengthen protection for those subjected to this behaviour.

Policy summary

The expanded offence will extend Section 66 of the 2003 Act to make it a criminal offence where someone intentionally exposes their genitals, and they intend that someone will see them and be caused alarm, distress or humiliation, or where someone exposes their genitals for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and does so with the intention that someone will see them, and is reckless as to whether someone who sees them will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation. Currently, the offence only captures those who intentionally expose their genitals and intend that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. This will make for consistent law, give more people subject to this behaviour protection under the 2003 Act, and ensure that notification requirements can apply in such cases.

Methodology and data analysis

The exposure offence is set out at Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Research shows that the offending behaviour may have a serious impact on those who witness it, and that some men commit this offence as part of wider pattern of sexual offending, some of which is very serious. Research amongst those convicted of serious sex offences suggests that many had committed “nuisance” offences such as exposing or voyeurism.^{[footnote 14]}

In July 2021 the Law Commission published Modernising Communications Offences: a final report.^{[footnote 15]} Chapter 6 of that Report focuses on cyberflashing and includes the Law Commission’s recommendation that a new criminal offence be implemented to address the behaviour.

The Law Commission recommended that the new offence have two alternative specific intent elements:

1. A intended that B would see the photograph or film and be caused alarm, distress or humiliation, or

2. A sent the photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and was reckless as to whether B would be caused alarm, distress or humiliation.

These differ from the mental element of the existing section (exposure) 66 offence, which requires that the exposure be done with the intent that someone will see the genitals and be caused alarm or distress. Much of the evidence presented to the Law Commission during their consultation opposed adopting the section 66 standard for the new cyberflashing offence, on the basis that it was too narrow and did not capture cases of exposure for the purpose of sexual gratification, or exposure with intent to humiliate.

The previous Government accepted the Law Commission’s recommendation as to the mental element for the new cyberflashing offence (including the recommendation regarding the offence’s mental elements) and implemented it by creating the new offence at Section 66A of the 2003 Act.

The result is that there are two offences in the 2003 Act – Sections 66 and 66A - covering very similar behaviour (carried out in different ways), but which have different mental elements.

As a matter of law, where a person exposes their genitals to another with the intent to humiliate, or for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, and does not also have an intent to cause alarm or distress, this is not captured by the S66 offence.

Much of the evidence submitted to the Law Commission pointed out that sexual gratification is one of the key drivers of exposure behaviour. Currently, acting (only) with the intent of obtaining sexual gratification is insufficient and this is reflected in the Crown Prosecution Service (the CPS) guidance which states: “If the purpose in exposing their genitals is to obtain sexual gratification this is not sufficient, and an offence of outraging public decency should be considered.”^{[footnote 16]}

The Law Commission was provided with evidence and examples of where cyberflashing was done with the intent to cause (and where it did cause) humiliation, as distinct from alarm or distress. It is reasonable to assume that this sort of intent is likely present in many cases of in-person exposure as well.

Age

ONS data regarding the age of victims and perpetrators in exposure cases only covers those over 16, thus limiting the available evidence relating to age. Overcriminalisation of young people was a direct concern during the Law Commission’s consultation into cyberflashing^{[footnote 17]}. However, we have not seen any evidence to suggest that this is the case for the in-person S66 offence.

Sex

Research suggests that the majority of victims of this crime are women and that the majority of the perpetrators are men,^{[footnote 18]} although we are aware that both men and women can be both victims and perpetrators in exposure cases.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of gender reassignment, marriage, and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, race, or sexual orientation. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of defendants and potential victims likely to be affected.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

We assess that the amended offence will not be directly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. It will apply in the same way to all perpetrators and victims. The new offence is not considered to result in people being treated less favourably because of their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination arises where a policy, practice or provision is applied in the same way for everyone but results in those who share a protected characteristic suffering a particular disadvantage when compared with those who do not share the protected characteristic.

Whilst the new policy will apply to all perpetrators and victims, the available data suggests that the vast majority of charges under Section 66 of the 2003 Act have been levelled against men. For example, Metropolitan Police data shows that between 2010 - 2020 98.4% of 2,121 people charged for exposure were men.^{[footnote 19]} Therefore, men are more likely to be the perpetrators of the amended offence and will therefore be more likely to be particularly disadvantaged through convictions under the amended offence,

However, we do not consider that the provisions will amount to unlawful indirect discrimination since the impacts can be justified. This behaviour is harmful regardless of the sex of the perpetrator or victim, and we therefore believe the measures, applying equally to male and female perpetrators are a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting victims from this behaviour.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability for perpetrators and victims. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators and victims with disabilities.

Advancing equality of opportunity

Both perpetrators and victims could be people with any of the protected characteristics, but in the main the perpetrators of the behaviour targeted are likely to be men. We do not believe that these measures specifically advance the equality of opportunity for particular groups, but the creation of these offences aims to protect people from this harmful behaviour and should have a positive impact on them.

Fostering good relations

We do not consider that these proposals would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Administering etc harmful substances (including by spiking)

Introduction

Spiking is a term used to describe the administration of a substance, whether by adding it to food, drink or otherwise, without a person’s consent, and usually with an intent to cause some harm to, or incapacitate, that person. It can include putting alcohol into a non-alcoholic drink, adding extra alcohol to an alcoholic drink or slipping prescription or illegal drugs into an alcoholic or non-alcoholic drink, food, cigarette or vape. In Autumn 2021, the police reported a surge in reports of drink-spiking incidents, as well as the emergence of a new practice known as “needle spiking”.

Spiking is currently illegal and can be prosecuted under a range of criminal offences depending on the circumstances of the case. In addition to general offences such as assault, there are offences relating to the administration of a substance at sections 22 to 24 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (the 1861 Act) which capture all forms of spiking. Sections 23 and 24 of the 1861 Act also cover other non-spiking behaviours where a noxious substance may be administered, e.g. where a person is sprayed with CS gas. In cases where a substance is administered with the intention of engaging in sexual activity with the victim, there is also a separate offence at section 61 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Policy summary

In response to concerns raised about an increase in prevalence of spiking, and that there is a lack of understanding of how existing offences apply to this behaviour, the Government is creating a new administering a harmful substance offence.

The new offence aims to address the concerns of victims, campaigners and MPs by increasing public awareness of spiking and encouraging victims to report such crimes to the police as soon as possible.

The Government has repealed sections 22, 23 and 25 of the 1861 Act and replaced section 24 with a single administering a harmful substance (including by spiking) offence which has a maximum penalty of 10 years and is triable either way. The new offence will continue to criminalise broadly the same behaviour that is currently criminalised under sections 23 and 24 of the 1861 Act, including spiking behaviour.

Methodology and data analysis

Incidents of spiking are underreported. This can be due to a range of factors, including embarrassment, pressure from perpetrators or fear of further violence, lack of trust in the police or an assumption that the police could not help or fear of not being believed. Spiking in all its forms is a challenging crime to assess, as victims may not be aware that the effects they are experiencing are the result of being spiked. Victims may also be dealing with the trauma of a related offence, such as sexual assault, which could impact their willingness to pursue reporting the crime. This means there are challenges in understanding the true prevalence of spiking, the motivations of perpetrators, the substances being used, and the nature of spiking.

There are no national statistics which show the number of individuals who are charged and subsequently prosecuted and convicted of offences relating to spiking. Although data is collated on convictions for offences under which spiking incidents may be prosecuted, these offences also apply to a wider range of criminal behaviours in addition to spiking. It is currently not possible to extract data from these offences where they relate solely to incidents of spiking.

In order to increase understanding of the prevalence of spiking, in particular whether it occurs through drink, food, vape or needle, new crime codes are being introduced with the aim of capturing better data to help devise preventative strategies for spiking where needed. These will come into effect in the Spring of 2025.

Availability of data

The Government’s manifesto committed to introducing “a new criminal offence to help the police better respond to this crime [spiking]”.

In Autumn 2021, the police reported a surge in reports of drink-spiking incidents, as well as the emergence of “needle spiking”. In a debate pack published by the House of Common Library on 13 December 2023,^{[footnote 20]} reference was made to the receipt of 6,732 reports of spiking to the police, which included 957 needle spiking reports during the period May 2022 to April 2023. This further stated that according to the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC)^{[footnote 21]} on average, the police receive 561 reports a month.

The Government is committed to halving violence against women and girls over the next decade. While victims of spiking can be both male and female, and victims can be ‘spiked’ in non-sexual attacks (like robbery), or for any other reason, it is an offence which typically occurs as an attack on women, particularly in the night-time economy. The Government is also conscious that victims, campaigners and Parliamentarians from across the political spectrum, continue to have concerns about the increased prevalence of spiking.

Data, however, can only be presented where known therefore where an individual’s disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy, race, religion or belief are not stated or are unknown, they are omitted from the analysis below (on age and sex and sexual orientation as follows):

Age

According to a spiking factsheet published on 21 December 2023^{[footnote 22]}, the average age of victims of spiking (across all types of spiking, e.g. drink, needle, food, vape, etc), is 26 years. This seems to suggest that victims of spiking, where such incidents are reported, are mainly young women (see below) and they are likely to benefit more once this measure is introduced.

Sex

According to the spiking factsheet published on 21 December 2023^{[footnote 23]}, when it comes to spiking, women are disproportionately affected with almost 74% of victims of spiking being women. However, this data relies on those cases reported to the police.

We are aware that it is not just women who report drink spiking. According to the report on the Review of Spiking,^{[footnote 24]} 40% of those reporting an episode of spiking in the last 12 months were male.

Sexual orientation

Evidence submitted to Parliament by campaigners Raise your Voice^{[footnote 25]} also suggests that gay and bisexual men are more likely to be victims of spiking than heterosexual men and that this is becoming increasingly more prevalent. In a 2022 report, the Alcohol Education Trust^{[footnote 26]} also recommended that more awareness be raised around drink spiking in the LGBTQ+ community, claiming that the prevalence of drink spiking was as high as it was among women.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race or religion or belief. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of defendants and potential victims likely to be affected.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

We assess that the offence of administering a harmful substance (including by spiking) will not be directly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. It will apply in the same way to all perpetrators and victims. The new offence is not considered to result in people being treated less favourably because of their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination arises where a policy, practice or provision is applied in the same way for everyone but results in those who share a protected characteristic suffering a particular disadvantage when compared with those who do not share the protected characteristic. Indirect discrimination will not be unlawful if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Evidence suggests that women are disproportionately affected by spiking, but campaign groups have also highlighted that gay and bisexual men might be more likely than heterosexual men to be a victim of spiking. Although the new administering a harmful substance offence will be beneficial to all victims despite any protected characteristic, the new offence is likely to have a greater positive impact on women, and it may also have a positive impact on gay and bisexual men.

We understand that, in general, men commit more spiking offences than women and are therefore more likely to be disproportionately impacted as offenders. To the extent that men (or those with any other protected characteristic) are indirectly impacted by the new offence, we do not consider that this will amount to unlawful indirect discrimination, because it is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting people from being administered a harmful substance without their consent. The new offence aims to increase public awareness and understanding of spiking and in turn make it more likely for victims to report this type of criminal behaviour.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability for perpetrators and victims. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators and victims with disabilities.

Advancing equality of opportunity

Both perpetrators and victims could be people with any of the protected characteristics, but the victims of the behaviour are more likely to be women. We do not believe that these measures specifically advance the equality of opportunity for particular groups, but the creation of these offences aims to protect people from this harmful behaviour and should have a positive impact on them.

Fostering good relations

We do not consider that the new offence of administering a substance capable of causing harm including spiking, would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Child abduction

Introduction

Disputes involving child abduction are usually resolved through civil dispute and family custody processes, rather than by the criminal law. The UK is a contracting State to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 1980 Hague Convention)^{[footnote 27]}. Under the 1980 Hague Convention, the court in the country where the child has been taken will decide whether the child should be returned to the country where they were habitually resident. Unlike the existing domestic criminal law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the 1980 Hague Convention treats the removal and retention of a child abroad equally.

Separately, it is a criminal offence in England and Wales under section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 (the 1984 Act)^{[footnote 28]} and Article 3 of the Child Abduction (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (the 1985 Order)^{[footnote 29]} for a parent or person with similar responsibility to take or send a child out of the UK without the consent of the other parent or other person with similar responsibility or the court. It is not, however, a criminal offence for a parent who has lawfully removed a child from the UK (i.e. they have the consent of the other parent or person with similar responsibility or the court), to detain that child outside the UK for longer than the permitted period.

This ‘gap’ in the law was highlighted in the case of R (on the application of Nicolaou) v Redbridge Magistrates’ Court [2012].

Policy summary

The Government aims to close a legislative gap by amending the 1984 Act and the 1985 Order to make it a criminal offence for a parent or person with similar responsibility for a child, to detain that child outside the UK without the consent of the other parent or persons with similar responsibility, or of the court.

Consent to prosecute cases of detaining a child abroad without consent will be required from the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales or Northern Ireland dependent on where the prosecution is to occur. A maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment on indictment would apply - the same penalty which applies currently to existing offences at sections 1 and 2 of the 1984 Act and Articles 3 and 4 of the 1985 Order.

The assumption remains, however, that the resolution of cases involving international parental abduction where the child is retained abroad beyond the initial period of consent, will mostly continue to be progressed through the civil courts as they are now.

Methodology and data analysis

International parental child abductions are difficult, complex and emotional for those affected. Many children have parents of different nationalities or have connections to different countries. If parental relationships break down, it is possible that the parents may not agree on major decisions about their child (or children). This may lead to one parent moving their child from their usual home without the agreement of the other parent or where they have obtained consent to take the child abroad, they may detain the child abroad indefinitely (without getting further consent to do so). There may be many reasons for that including animosity between the parents perhaps because of difficult divorce proceedings, domestic abuse or financial problems etc.

Cases relating to child abduction by a parent tend to be resolved through the 1980 Hague Convention where that Convention applies. A report was published - “Global Report: Statistical study of applications made in 2021 under the 1980 Hague Convention - in October 2023 (2023 Hague Convention Report).^{[footnote 30]} This study analysed 1980 Hague Convention applications received by the Central Authorities of States participating in the period 1 January - 31 December 2021. However, in line with previous studies, the final outcome of an application (i.e. those made between 1 January to 31 December 2021) were recorded up to their conclusion, with a cut-off date for conclusion being 30 June 2023. If an application remained unresolved after that date, it was classed as “pending” by the participating Central Authorities. The report captures 94% of all applications received and sent in 2021 under the 1980 Hague Convention.

In terms of criminal proceedings, in their report, “Simplification of the Criminal Law: Kidnapping and Related Offences”^{[footnote 31]}, published in November 2014, the Law Commission recommended that “….the offence under section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 should be amended to include the case where the connected person, having taken or sent the child out of the UK with the appropriate consent, keeps or retains that child outside the UK without the appropriate consent or in breach of the conditions of the consent given”. The Government did not publish a formal response to this Law Commission report.

Reunite International, a leading UK charity, who specialise in international child abduction cases, claim there is an increasing trend away from wrongful abduction to wrongful detention of a child abroad. They believe that some parents see this as an ‘easier route’ to permanently keeping their child abroad, with no criminal charges or police involvement, and are therefore using this method to circumvent the law.

International child abduction, including children who are detained abroad by a parent or person with similar responsibility for the child without consent, was debated by Parliament in March 2023 and on 30 April 2024.

Availability of data

In terms of criminal proceedings in England and Wales, given there is no existing criminal offence, there is no quantifiable data on children who are detained abroad by a parent or person with similar responsibility without consent to do so. Data on criminal proceedings is only available where the parent has taken the child outside the UK without consent (i.e. those who are prosecuted under section 1 of the 1984 Act and Article 3 of the 1985 Order). In England and Wales, for the period 1 January 2020 to 30 December 2024, there were 62 prosecutions for child abduction, with 26 convicted and 24 sentenced^{[footnote 32]}. For Northern Ireland, for the period 2020 to 2024 there were 7 prosecutions for offences under Article 3 of the Child Abduction (NI) Order, resulting in 6 convictions.^{[footnote 33]} In terms of the 1980 Hague Convention, the 2023 Hague Convention Report^{[footnote 34]}, shows that there were 226 (outgoing return and access) applications for England and Wales and 9 for Northern Ireland for the period 1 January to 31 December 2021.

Data can only be presented where it is known. Where an individual’s disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief or sexual orientation are not stated or are unknown, they are omitted from the analysis below:

Sex

In terms of criminal proceedings in England and Wales, there is currently no data on a child being detained abroad without consent because it is not currently a criminal offence. The only data available is on the number of individuals prosecuted and convicted under the existing offence at section 1 of the 1984 Act. The data from England and Wales has been quantified and qualified.

Given the Government is creating a new criminal offence, it is considered that the criminal law statistics for England and Wales^{[footnote 35]} offer the best proxy on which to base assumptions on prosecutions under the new detention offence. The statistics show that prosecutions remain relatively low in number, so it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the data. For the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2024 there was on average 12 prosecutions per year with more men likely to be prosecuted. For the same timeframe, more women are likely to be convicted than men, and men are marginally more likely to receive a custodial sentence in comparison to women.

It should be noted that although there is data on those prosecuted and convicted under Article 3 of the 1985 Order in Northern Ireland^{[footnote 36]} there is no available data on the sex (or other protected characteristic) of those persons.

In civil proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention, for applications relating to England and Wales, the 2023 Hague Convention Report specifies that in 2021, 74% of taking persons were mothers, whilst 25% were fathers and the other 1% were relatives etc. In Northern Ireland, 71% of taking persons were mothers, whilst 29% were fathers. The 2023 Hague Convention Report does not isolate or report separately whether these statistics concern the taking of a child from the UK without the consent of the other parent or person with parental responsibility or retaining the child abroad beyond any consent given by the other parent.

Civil law data from the 2023 Hague Convention Report does not directly correlate to criminal prosecutions for child abduction by a parent in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. However, it is clear that women are more likely to be the person who has taken the child out of England and Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to civil applications and it is accepted that this may be relevant to the ‘pool’ of potential defendants under the new criminal offence.

Given the Government anticipates that cases of international child abduction will mostly continue to be progressed through the civil courts, by way of family proceedings including applications made under the 1980 Hague Convention, the Government does not expect a significant increase in the number of individuals prosecuted using the criminal law. However, the intent is that the new offence can be used in appropriate cases where a child is being detained unlawfully abroad. In such cases, the Government accepts that it is possible that more women than men may be prosecuted and/or convicted of the new offence.

Age

We do not have any data on the age of people who may wrongfully detain a child abroad, including under the 1980 Hague Convention. The 1980 Hague Convention Report does, however, provide data on the average age of children involved in return applications (although this data applies to all contracting states who participated in the survey). Overall, the average age of children involved in return applications in 2021 was 6.7 years.

The new offence criminalises the action of the parent (or person with similar responsibility) who does not return the detained child to the UK. However, the policy change might indirectly help to return the detained child and therefore, depending on the circumstances, could benefit a child under the age of 16.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

The proposed criminal child detention offence will apply to all parents (or persons with similar parental responsibility), regardless of protected characteristics. As a result, this measure does not involve direct discrimination within the meaning of the EA as it does not treat people less favourably due to their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

No criminal law data exists which shows the sex of the person who wrongfully detains a child abroad (due to the fact such behaviour is not currently an offence in itself).

In the absence of such data, the Government considers that the criminal law statistics for the existing offence at section 1 of the 1984 Act in England and Wales are the best proxy for determining the protected characteristics of those who would be prosecuted and convicted under the new offence. However, we acknowledge that data relating to civil proceedings, i.e. that under the 1980 Hague Convention Report^{[footnote 37]} may have relevance. Therefore, it is possible that more women than men may be disadvantaged by the new offence.

However, to the extent there is any particular disadvantage to women, this would not amount to unlawful indirect discrimination, because it is considered to be a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of preventing wrongful detention of a child abroad. The new criminal offence is intended to close an identified gap in the law. In doing so, it aims to act as a deterrent and ensure that prosecutions can be brought in appropriate cases where a child is being unlawfully detained abroad. The action of detaining the child abroad without consent might cause the child actual harm, or at the minimum it is likely to have the effect of separating the child from the left-behind parent and result in the child not living at their usual address or attending their usual school. Detention can interfere with any right the left-behind parent has in maintaining a relationship with their child, including (depending on the circumstances) living with their child or having regular contact with them.

There may be a positive impact on children if fewer are detained abroad without consent and/or more children are able to be successfully returned to the UK..

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability for perpetrators and victims. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators and victims with disabilities.

Advancing equality of opportunity

We do not believe that these measures specifically advance the equality of opportunity for particular groups, but the creation of this offence aims to protect people from this harmful behaviour and should have a positive impact on them.

Fostering good relations

Criminalising the wrongful detention of a child by a parent or person with similar responsibility aims to both address a gap in the current law and complement existing civil law remedies in securing the return of a child to the UK. It will provide clarity in that where a parent or person with similar responsibility detains a child outside the UK without appropriate consent, they may face criminal proceedings. Primarily, however, international parental child abduction is likely to continue to be resolved through civil proceedings (e.g. the 1980 Hague Convention). This measure will therefore not have a significant impact on fostering good relations with any particular sector of society.

Community and suspended sentences notification details

Introduction

This measure will improve the ability of probation and youth offending teams (“YOT”) to monitor offenders, ensuring that the public are protected so that, while an offender is serving a sentence in the community, the responsible officer has the information that they need to supervise that individual effectively, including if they change their name and their up-to-date contact information. Swift and clear action can be taken where an offender does not comply.

Policy summary

The measure will place a new duty on offenders serving a sentence in the community, and who are supervised by probation or a YOT, requiring them to inform the responsible officer if they change their name, use a different name (e.g. an alias) or change their contact information. The name change could be for any reason.

This will amend the Sentencing Code to create a duty on offenders to notify the responsible officer of any change of name if they are sentenced to a Community Order, Suspended Sentence Order, Youth Rehabilitation Order or Referral Order. The responsible officer will have the power to initiate breach proceedings if the offender does not comply.

This requirement already applies to offenders released from custody. In 2022, secondary legislation was passed requiring offenders on licence to inform their probation officer, or YOT officer, if they change their name (Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2022). The measures in this Act cannot be established by secondary legislation under the Sentencing Act 2020.

Evidence and analysis

Data on the protected characteristics of those under probation supervision is published in Ministry of Justice’s (“MoJ’s”) Offender Management Statistics^{[footnote 38]}. Data on the protected characteristics of children serving youth community sentences is published in MoJ’s Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly^{[footnote 39]}. As data on protected characteristics are only published where data is collected and of sufficient quality for statistics to be meaningful, data is limited to the characteristics of sex, age, and race (ethnicity).

Sex

Men are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and probation caseload. At end of December 2023, 84% of those under probation supervision on a Community Order (“CO”) were male and 88% of those on a Suspended Sentence Order (“SSO”). In 2023, 83% of children sentenced to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (“YRO”) or Referral Order (“RO”) were male^{[footnote 40]}.

The average length of a CO and SSO is longer for men than women. At end of December 2023, the average length of a CO for men under probation supervision was 15.8m and 19.7m for a SSO, compared to 13.9m and 18.8m respectively for women.

Age

At the end of December 2023, adults on the probation caseload serving a sentence in the community were most likely to be aged between 30 and 39 – 34% of those supervised under a CO and 32% under an SSO.

At the same point in time, 81% of juveniles sentenced to a YRO or RO were aged between 15 and 17 – 86% of those sentenced to a YRO and 79% to a RO.

As shown in Table 1 below, those aged 18 to 39 are overrepresented in the CO and SSO probation caseload. In contrast, those aged 50 or over are under-represented on the CO and SSO probation caseload, accounting for 11% and 13% respectively, compared to 48% of the general adult population.

Table 1: Those under probation supervision on a CO or SSO and the general adult population, by age

Age	Under probation supervision at end Dec 2023 - CO	Under probation supervision at end Dec 2023 - SSO	General adult population 2021
18 – 24	19%	21%	11%
25 – 29	15%	16%	8%
30 – 39	34%	32%	17%
40 – 49	20%	18%	16%
50 or over	12%	13%	48%

Ethnicity

As shown in Table 2, those from some minority ethnic backgrounds, particularly Black people, were overrepresented amongst those under probation supervision on a CO or SSO compared to the general adult population.

Table 2: Those under probation supervision on a CO or SSO and general adult population, by ethnicity

Ethnicity	Under probation supervision at end Dec 2023 [1] - CO	Under probation supervision at end Dec 2023 - SSO [1]	General adult population 202 [2]
White	79%	76%	84%
Black	6%	8%	4%
Asian	6%	7%	9%
Mixed	4%	5%	2%
Other	2%	2%	2%

Similarly to adults under probation supervision, those from Black or mixed ethnic background were over-represented amongst juveniles sentenced to a YRO or RO compared to the general 10-17 population (see Table 3).

Table 3: Juveniles sentenced to a YRO or RO and general youth population, by ethnicity

Ethnicity	Sentenced to a court order at end Dec 2022 - YRO [3]	Sentenced to a court order at end Dec 2022 - RO [3]	10-17 year-old general population 2021 [4]
White	74%	75%	74%
Black	11%	11%	6%
Asian	5%	6%	12%
Mixed	8%	7%	6%
Other	2%	1%	3%

Notes

1. Where ethnicity was stated/recorded.
2. 2021 Census data, Ethnic group, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)
3. Where ethnicity was stated/recorded.
4. Ethnic group by age and sex in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a policy would result in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Our assessment is that this policy is not directly discriminatory within the meaning of the Act, as the proposals are not considered to result in people being treated less favourably because of their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not.

The department believes that there is potential for this measure to be indirectly discriminatory to some groups with certain protected characteristics. This is because some characteristics (age, sex, race – see the data above) are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and those serving a sentence in the community under probation or YOT supervision. We consider the policy to be a proportionate means to help probation and YOT services effectively manage offenders in the community.

Transgender offenders may be disproportionately affected by this policy as, if offenders socially transition, they may also elect to change their name. It should be noted that the objective of this policy is to support offenders who have changed their name through transition by enabling probation and YOTs to manage offenders effectively in the community with updated information. Using the new names of individuals who have transitioned will support the care and dignity of transgender offenders.

Men are overrepresented in the criminal justice system so it is possible that this policy may impact them more. However, we believe that women may be more likely to change their name, for example through marriage.

Overall, we do not consider that the policy is likely to result in any particular disadvantage from these over-representations. We consider that the policy is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of improving the ability of probation and YOTs to monitor offenders.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability for perpetrators and victims. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators and victims with disabilities.

Advancing equality of opportunity

We do not believe that this provision will have an impact on the duty to advance equality of opportunity because the policy relates to ensuring offenders can be supervised and managed appropriately. To that end, everyone is likely to benefit from continuing to have their needs considered if they have changed their name.

Fostering good relations

Our assessment is that imposing a duty on offenders serving a sentence in the community, and who are supervised by probation or a youth offending team, to inform the responsible officer if they change their name or contact details, is unlikely to impact on fostering good relations between groups with different protected characteristics.

Polygraph testing of serious sexual offenders

Introduction

This policy is to introduce polygraph testing as a licence condition for offenders who have been convicted of murder and are assessed as posing a risk of sexual offending on release, or who at an earlier point during their sentence had also been serving a concurrent sentence for a relevant sexual offence.

Policy summary

The Probation Service has been using polygraph testing with certain individuals convicted of sexual offences released on licence since 2014. In 2021, it was extended to terrorist offenders by the Counter Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 and, under provision in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the Probation Service also commenced a three-year pilot of polygraph testing with high-risk domestic abuse perpetrators.

The Act will introduce a provision that enables a polygraph testing condition to be added to the licence of individuals convicted of murder who the Secretary of State assesses to pose a risk of sexual offending upon release.

When polygraph testing was introduced for sexual offending, the criteria always intended it to be targeted at offenders who pose a high risk and likelihood of causing sexual harm. On average, we find that people have made risk-related disclosures in approximately two-thirds of these tests which demonstrates the value of it as a risk management measure. The current law, however, means that in cases where someone has been convicted of a murder where there is either clear evidence of sexual motivation at the time (i.e. the person is also sentenced for an offence of rape, or a sexual offence is left to lie on file), or this later becomes apparent after someone has started their sentence, in most instances they are not eligible for polygraph testing on release. In simple terms, if an offender rapes someone we can polygraph test them on licence; if they rape and murder the victim, we cannot always polygraph test them on licence as it is dependent on the sentences that were given. Given how important polygraph testing is in providing the probation practitioner with risk-related information that they otherwise would not know, it is essential that we are able to use it with those who have previously committed murder and are established to pose a risk of sexual offending whilst on licence.

This section will ensure that we are able to use polygraph testing to manage those offenders who pose significant risks of sexual harm. Furthermore, it will make the testing of sexual offenders consistent with terrorist and domestic abuse offenders, for whom polygraph can be used if they have been convicted of murder.

People released on licence who had a concurrent sentence for a relevant sexual offence

The Act will introduce a provision that enables a polygraph testing condition to be added to the licence of individuals serving a sentence for a non-sexual offence who, at any earlier point in the sentence, were concurrently serving a sentence for a relevant sexual offence.

As per the section above, this will ensure that we are able to polygraph test people convicted of polygraph-eligible sexual offences who are also serving sentences for other offences but where the licence period for their sexual offence ends before they are released, or ends before the end of their licence period for their non-sexual offence.

This remains consistent with the current policy intentions to target the policy at those who pose a high risk of sexual harm.

This section will ensure that we are able to use polygraph testing to manage those offenders who pose significant risks of sexual harm.

Evidence and analysis

• Operational data drawn from probation case management systems

• Polygraph Policy Framework

• Polygraph Policy Framework Equality Analysis

Impact

The use of polygraph testing in the Probation Service is underpinned by a Policy Framework. The Policy Framework (PF) is informed by an equality analysis (EA) which is regularly reviewed, particularly when the PF is updated. The EA considers the impacts of the polygraph PF on people on probation and staff with protected characteristics. The EA was most recently updated in February 2025.

Number of people on probation who will be impacted:

1. When looking at the caseload data (October 2024), there were 855 people on the HMPPS caseload with a conviction for murder where the assessor assessed the murder to be sexually motivated.

2. Of these, 365 are currently on licence in the community. 160 of these would become eligible for polygraph testing if new legislation were brought in, on the basis that they are currently assessed as high or very high risk of serious harm (the policy criteria).

3. 490 are currently in custody, and any of these assessed as high or very high risk of harm upon release would also become eligible for polygraph testing.

4. With regards to people with concurrent sentences which included an earlier relevant sexual offence, we do not have data on the numbers of people serving concurrent sentences, the shorter of which was for a relevant sexual offence. However, colleagues with operational experience and feedback from the team who manage polygraph queries suggest the numbers will be low.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a policy would result in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Our assessment is that these changes to polygraph testing are not directly discriminatory within the meaning of the EA, as they apply in the same way to all individuals regardless of their protected characteristics. No offender will be treated less favourably in relation to any protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those with a particular protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not share that characteristic. We assess that this amendment will not be indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 as explained below.

Eligibility for polygraph testing is determined by legal criteria (type of offence and length of sentence) and policy criteria (risk of harm and risk of reoffending). This section will amend the legal criteria - it is not determined by personal characteristics. For this reason, we do not anticipate that the sections in this Act will be likely to indirectly discriminate on any offender with protected characteristics.

The impact of the changes will be monitored closely by MoJ and HMPPS jointly. The IRTL also has routine oversight of the operation of the relevant Terrorism Acts and post-legislative scrutiny will conducted by the Government on this Bill.

Below, we draw on the existing EA and have also considered the impact of the new sections on offenders that fall into the protected characteristic groups, and put in place plans to mitigate any disproportionate impact.

The eligibility of individuals falling within the scope of this measure is determined by offence type, sentence length and risk assessment, not by any individual’s protected characteristic/s.

Age

The polygraph test will only be added to the licences of offenders who are aged 18 years and over at the most recent date of release from prison.

There is no upper age limit. There are no known adverse impacts of the polygraph on any particular age group. Continuing to test will be determined by level of risk of serious harm, not age.

A thorough 3-stage suitability assessment is undertaken prior to any examination taking place. This will ensure that any individual with any age-related conditions, such as dementia, will be assessed to ensure they are suitable for the examination, before it takes place. The policy framework sets out the suitability assessment process. The specialist polygraph provider can also provide advice on suitability, if required.

In making a decision regarding whether deception is indicated, the polygraph examiner compares and examinee’s responses to a number of questions in order to determine relative differences between them. This in effect means that examinees provide their own physiological baseline.

Disability

The thorough 3-stage suitability assessment undertaken prior to any examination taking place will also ensure that any potential disabilities are known about and can be considered in terms of the offender’s suitability for the assessment and for making arrangements for the examination to take place. The policy framework sets out the suitability assessment process. The specialist polygraph provider can also provide advice on suitability for polygraph examinations, if required. The polygraph equipment and sensors do not impact on physical health.

Any individual who is subject to mandatory testing would be seen in a building with access for people with physical disability (for example, accessible buildings with access ramps/automatic doors/suitable toilet facilities etc.)

Hearing loops can be provided and used for the test to examination place.

The noise-cancelling features in the Masseter headsets can be helpful for people with autism, can help reduce sensory overload, and reduce stress by making the environment quieter.

If the wearing of headphones is not possible due to a particular medical condition or disability, the test can go ahead without using them.

We recognise that not all disabilities are visible and that some disabilities, which are not visible, may affect an individual’s day to day life. When arranging polygraph testing appointments, it will be important to take into account issues such as extreme tiredness (arising from conditions such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia etc), to schedule the session at a time during the day that best suits the individual’s condition, but also taking into account availability of examiners/polygraph testing slots etc

Attending for and undertaking a polygraph test can make some people apprehensive or anxious. Polygraph examiners are trained to put examinee offenders at ease, as best they can, to mitigate the impact of the test on raising their anxiety any further. This will be particularly relevant for offenders who are diagnosed with a mental health condition (such as depression and/or anxiety).

Gender reassignment

There are no adverse effects of the polygraph test for offenders who have undergone, or who are in the process of undergoing, gender reassignment. The test is applied to all individuals in the same manner, regardless of gender.

One of the polygraph instruments is attached to the offender by a band placed on the upper chest and one on the diaphragm. This may impact individuals who identify as a different gender than the one assigned at birth but who have not undergone gender affirmation surgery. The wearing of binders or prosthetics does not impact on the use of the polygraph instruments. Examiners should therefore ensure that offenders are told this by their probation practitioner before they attend for the test, to help minimise any anxiety.

Every effort will be made for either a male or female polygraph examiner to be made available upon request, but this cannot be guaranteed as it will depend on the availability of examiners.

Determining eligibility does differ for individuals whose legal gender is recorded as male or female. Direct Contact - Sexual Reoffending Predictor (DC-SRP) does not apply for individual whose legal gender is recorded as female. In such cases, the probation practitioner must consider whether the polygraph licence condition is necessary and proportionate to manage the risk posed. The decision should be based on whether the individual poses a high or very high risk of sexual reoffending and harm – to ensure polygraph is used in a proportionate way

Further guidance and advice is set out in the Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender Policy Framework.

Marriage and civil partnership

There are no adverse effects of the polygraph test on individuals who are married or in civil partnerships.

Pregnancy and maternity

There is no evidence that the polygraph sensors pose any risk of harm to someone who is pregnant. They include a cuff to the upper arm, a band to the abdomen (it is not tight or restrictive), a pressure pad on the seat and small clips to the finger. Tests would be conducted to fit at times that enabled pregnant women to attend all maternity appointments. Probation staff would comply with any instructions from a GP or Obstetrician in relation to the physical care of any female examinee to protect the health of the mother and unborn child.

Race

There are no adverse effects of the polygraph test on offenders based on their race. If an individual uses English as an alternative language, for example a Foreign National Offender, a translator will be made available to them to allow them to complete the test in their first language.

There are no adverse impacts of polygraph testing for individuals who are Gypsy, Roma and Traveller.

Translation services will be provided for Welsh speakers when required.

Religion and belief

Polygraph examinations require direct physical contact between examiners and examinees, as equipment is attached to the body to conduct the test.

In some cases, cultural and religious sensitives may impact certain groups (for example, offenders identifying as Muslim) more than others. Muslim individuals currently comprise 74% of the individuals convicted of terror offences in custody and 79% of those in the community. Although there is much variation in practice among Muslims, some observant Muslim offenders may find polygraph examinations contrary to their religious beliefs because of the close physical contact required with the examiner. Every effort will be made to ensure either a male or female polygraph examiner is available upon request.

Due to the makeup of polygraph examiners, we know that it will not be possible to accommodate male examiners in all cases of male Muslim offenders. Polygraph examiners also cover large geographical regions, and the majority of terrorist offenders subject to polygraph examinations will be male, meaning that there is unlikely to be capacity for examiners to cover wider geographical regions than their remit.

Examinations should be delivered in isolation (just the examiner and examinee) and examiners are trained and examined on attaching the equipment as part of their training. It is, therefore, not possible for a male staff member to assist with this part of the examination.

Mandatory polygraph testing applies equally to all terrorist individuals, regardless of religion.

For examinees who wear religious headwear adjustments may be required to accommodate the use of the Masseter headsets.

Wearing a turban is mandatory in the Sikh faith and turban sizes vary; smaller turbans may allow the headset to fit over them. For individuals who wear larger turbans the examiner or probation practitioner should give the individual advance notice so they can choose to wear the smaller turban in the test. Any request to wear a smaller turban must be communicated sensitively acknowledging that turbans are not easily removed due to how they are tied.

Sex

It is likely that the majority of people who will be in scope under this measure will be male which reflects the make-up of the prison and probation population.

The test could (likely in a very small number of cases) be applied to female individuals.

A thorough 3-stage suitability assessment is undertaken prior to any examination taking place, to ensure that any sex-related circumstances which may need consideration such as menopause can be considered in terms of suitability for the assessment. The policy framework sets out the suitability assessment process. The specialist polygraph provider can also provide advice on suitability for polygraph examinations, if required.

Sex is not a criteria for polygraph eligibility - any individual can be required to undergo a polygraph examination if it is part of their licence condition as a necessary and proportionate risk management strategy.

Every effort will be made to ensure either a male or female polygraph examiner is available upon request.

Segmentation Tool data shows only 1% of the population of people on supervision in the community for sexual offences are women (Females in the community on supervision for sexual offences: 255, Males in the community on supervision for sexual offences: 19,600 (30 April 2025)

Determining eligibility does differ for individuals whose legal gender is recorded as male or female. DC-SRP does not apply for individual whose legal gender is recorded as female. In such cases, the probation practitioner must consider whether the polygraph licence condition is necessary and proportionate to manage the risk posed. The decision should be based on whether the individual poses a high or very high risk of sexual reoffending and harm – to ensure polygraph is used in a proportionate way with this group of individuals.

Sexual orientation

An offender’s sexual orientation will not be adversely impacted upon by means of the polygraph test. The test asks questions that relate to sexual offending and not about sexual orientation. There will be individuals who have a preference to sexually offend against children or adults of the opposite sex or the same sex and there may be questions asked which may include contact with individuals of a certain sex; this is not considered discriminatory in relation to the offender, but an issue which is solely related to the identification of and protection of current/potential victims, regardless of the sexual orientation of the offender.

Discrimination arising from disability and duty to make reasonable adjustments

Other than the issues discussed above, we do not consider that there is likely to be any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability and will continue to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people impacted by the policy proposals.

Advancing equality of opportunity

Consideration has been given to how the measure impacts on the duty to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity by meeting the needs of prisoners and offenders in the community who share a protected characteristic, where those needs are different from the needs of those who do not share that particular characteristic. The proposals are not considered likely to have an impact on equality of opportunity.

Fostering good relations

Our assessment is that these changes are unlikely to impact on fostering good relations between groups with different protected characteristics.

Polygraph testing for cohort of historic terrorist connected offenders

Introduction

Section 28 of the Offender Management Act (OMA) 2007 enables the Secretary of State to impose a polygraph condition on an offender released on licence in England and Wales.

The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act (CTSA) 2021 inserted section 28(4A) and (4B) into the OMA, enabling a polygraph condition to be imposed on offenders who have committed a ‘relevant terrorist offence’ and who fulfil certain other statutory and policy criteria.

‘Relevant terrorist offence’ includes those who have committed ‘terrorist-connected’ offences. ‘Terrorist connected’ is a statutory sentencing aggravating factor introduced by the Counter-Terrorism Act (CTA) 2008 which permits the court at the point of sentencing to impose a terrorism connection ‘label’ to offenders who have committed a non-terrorist offence when the relevant criteria are met.

Non-terrorist offences committed before 18 June 2009 (the commencement date of the relevant CTA 2008 provisions), currently cannot have a court-determined terrorist connected aggravating factor and therefore these offenders currently cannot have a polygraph testing licence condition imposed on release.

This provision extends polygraph testing to offenders who have been convicted of a non-terrorist offence, but which was clearly terrorism-related, and was committed before the relevant provisions in the CTA 2008 came into force.

In passing the CTSA 2021, the government made a commitment to undertake a review of the use and operation of the polygraph condition on those convicted of a relevant terrorist offence. As set out within that review, which was published in October 2023, between the CTSA 2021 coming into force on 29 June 2021 and 30 June 2023, 88 polygraph examinations were completed by 39 relevant terrorist offenders on probation. A number have been polygraphed on more than one occasion.

Polygraph testing is subject to rigorous quality controls which, in accordance with the Polygraph Rules 2009 includes reports to the Lord Chancellor at least every six months. We will continue to use quality control arrangements for testing moving forward.

Policy summary

The Act will extend polygraph testing as a licence condition to a small cohort of ‘historic terrorist connected offenders’. These are offenders who committed a non-terrorism offence, e.g. conspiracy to murder, but did so during, or for the purposes of, terrorism. These offences were committed before legislation came into force enabling the court at the point of sentencing to formally determine there to be a ‘terrorist connection’. As such, this small cohort of serious offenders cannot be made subject to polygraph testing by HMPPS as they are not classified as a terrorist or terrorist connected offender. Extending polygraph eligibility to this cohort will strengthen post-release risk management measures and better protect the public.

Methodology and data analysis

Sources of information include

• Operational data drawn from probation case management systems

• Polygraph Policy Framework

• Polygraph Policy Framework Equality Analysis

• HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Offender Equalities Report 2023/24^{[footnote 41]}

The use of polygraph testing in the Probation Service is underpinned by a Policy Framework. The Policy Framework (PF) is informed by an equality analysis (EA) which is regularly reviewed, particularly when the PF is updated. The EA considers the impacts of the polygraph PF on people on probation and staff with protected characteristics. The EA was most recently updated in February 2024.

Number of people on probation who will be impacted:

The extension of this provision applies retrospectively to all sentences already imposed, covering a small cohort of serious offenders, some of whom have already been released on licence, and others who are still in custody.

The HMPPS Offender Equalities 2023/24 report contains the latest information on progress and achievements pertaining to equalities objectives, as stated in the Equality Act 2010.

When evaluating the impact of these measures on individuals with protected characteristics, we have considered the following protected characteristics where data are collected and are of sufficient quality for statistics to be meaningful:

Prison population data by protected characteristic as of 31 March 2024

Age

As at 31 March 2024, a third (33.4% or 29,339) of prisoners were in the 30 to 39 age group, the second largest age group was the 40 to 49 age group, which covered 20.7% (18,175) of the prison population.

The younger prison population has been falling since 2013 whereas the over 30 prison population has been steadily rising.

Prisoners that were under 25 made up 13.1% (11,509) of the population.

Gender reassignment

There were 295 transgender prisoners in the 2024 data collection.

Race

In England and Wales, as at 31 March 2024, white prisoners made up 68.3% (10,809) of the remand prison population and 73.7% (52,000) of the sentenced prison population.

At this same point in time, prisoners who self-declared as being from a black or black British ethnic background made up 12.9% (2,047) of the remand prison population and 12.1% (8,534) of the sentenced population.

Prisoners who declared their ethnicity as Asian or Asian British represented 9.5% (1,506) of remand and 7.8% (5,530) of sentenced prisoners.

Religion or belief

As of 31 March 2024, within the England and Wales prison population, almost half (44.6% or 39,068) that specified a religion or belief self-identified as being Christian, 31.0% (27,122) prisoners identified as having no religion and 18.2% (15,909) identified as being Muslim.

Sex

On 31 March 2024, males made up 95.9% (84,234) of the total prison population and females 4.1% (3,635).

Sexual orientation

On 31 March 2024, 97.0% (88,032) of prisoners who declared a sexual orientation reported that they were heterosexual.

Age

The polygraph test will only be added to the licences of offenders who are aged 18 years and over at the most recent date of release from prison.

There is no upper age limit. Although this measure will affect those aged 18 or above, there are no known adverse impacts of the polygraph on any particular age group. Continuing to test will be determined by the level of risk of serious harm, not age.

A thorough 3-stage suitability assessment is undertaken prior to any examination taking place. This will ensure that any individual with any age-related conditions, such as dementia, will be assessed to ensure they are suitable for the examination, before it takes place. The policy framework sets out the suitability assessment process. We will continue to consider any identified impacts by the specialist polygraph provider and update this document if required.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

The thorough 3-stage suitability assessment undertaken prior to any examination taking place will also ensure that any potential disabilities are known about and can be considered in terms of the offender’s suitability for the assessment and for making arrangements for the examination to take place.

The polygraph equipment and sensors do not impact on physical health.

Attending for and undertaking a polygraph test can make some people apprehensive or anxious and the effects might be more pronounced for people with disabilities and how they can cope. Polygraph examiners are trained to put examinees at ease, as best they can, to mitigate the impact of the test on raising their anxiety any further. This will be particularly relevant for people who are diagnosed with a mental health condition (such as depression and/or anxiety).

Gender reassignment

There are no known adverse effects of the polygraph test for individuals who have undergone, or who are in the process of undergoing, gender reassignment. The test is applied to all individuals in the same manner, regardless of gender.

One of the polygraph instruments is attached to the individual by a band placed on the upper chest and one on the diaphragm. This may impact on individuals who identify as a different gender than the one assigned at birth but who have not undergone gender affirmation surgery. The wearing of binders or prosthetics does not impact on the use of polygraph instruments. Examiners should therefore ensure that individuals are told this by their probation practitioner before they attend the test, to help minimise any anxiety.

Every effort will be made for either a male or female polygraph examiner to be made available upon request, but this cannot be guaranteed as it will depend on the availability of examiners.

Marriage and civil partnership

There are no adverse effects of the polygraph test on individuals who are married or in civil partnerships.

Pregnancy and maternity

There is no evidence that the polygraph sensors pose any risk of harm to someone who is pregnant. They include a cuff to the upper arm, a band to the abdomen (it is not tight or restrictive), a pressure pad on the seat and small clips to the finger. Tests would be conducted to fit at times that enabled pregnant women to attend all maternity appointments. Probation staff would comply with any instructions from a GP or Obstetrician in relation to the physical care of any female examinee to protect the health of the mother and unborn child.

Race

There are no adverse effects of the polygraph test on individuals based on their race.

If an individual uses English as an alternative language, for example a Foreign National Offender, a translator will be made available to them to allow them to complete the test in their first language.

Religion and belief

Polygraph examinations require direct physical contact between examiners and examinees, as equipment is attached to the body to conduct the test.

In some cases, cultural and religious sensitives may impact certain groups (for example, individuals identifying as Muslim) more than others. Of the 254 persons in custody for terrorism and terrorism-connected offences in Great Britain with a self-declared religion, 161 were Muslim (63%). Although there is much variation in practice among Muslims, some observant Muslim individuals may find polygraph examinations contrary to their religious beliefs because of the close physical contact required with the examiner. Every effort will be made to ensure either a male or female polygraph examiner is available upon request, albeit we cannot guarantee to grant the request in every case.

Due to the makeup of polygraph examiners, we know that it will not be possible to accommodate male examiners in all cases of male Muslim individuals. Polygraph examiners also cover large geographical regions, and the majority of terrorist offenders subject to polygraph examinations will be male, meaning that there is unlikely to be capacity for examiners to cover wider geographical regions than their remit.

Sex

It is likely that the majority of people who will be in scope under this measure will be male which reflects the make-up of the prison and probation population.

The test could (likely in a very small number of cases) be applied to female individuals. However, the test is applied to all individuals in the same manner, regardless of sex.

Every effort will be made to ensure either a male or female polygraph examiner is available upon request. However, due to the relatively small number of polygraph examiners in HMPPS, this may not always be possible.

Sexual orientation

An individual’s sexual orientation will not be adversely impacted upon by means of the polygraph test. The test asks questions that relate to sexual offending and not about sexual orientation. There will be individuals who have a preference to sexually offend against children or adults of the opposite or the same sex and there may therefore be questions asked which may include contact with individuals of a certain sex; this is not discriminatory in relation to the individual, but an issue which is solely related to the identification of and protection of current/potential victims.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a policy would result in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Our assessment is that these changes to polygraph testing are not directly discriminatory within the meaning of the EA, as they apply in the same way to all individuals regardless of their protected characteristics. No offender will be treated less favourably in relation to any protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those with a particular protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not share that characteristic.

We assess that this amendment will not be indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 as explained below.

Eligibility for polygraph testing is determined by legal criteria (type of offence and length of sentence) and policy criteria (risk of harm and risk of reoffending). This Section will amend the legal criteria - it is not determined by personal characteristics. For this reason, we do not anticipate that the sections in this Act will directly discriminate on any offender with protected characteristics.

The impact of the changes will be monitored closely by MoJ and HMPPS jointly. The IRTL also has routine oversight of the operation of the relevant Terrorism Acts and post-legislative scrutiny will be conducted by the Government on this Act.

Below, we draw on the existing EA and have also considered the impact of the new sections on offenders that fall into the protected characteristic groups, and put in place plans to mitigate any disproportionate impact.

The eligibility of individuals falling within the scope of this measure is determined by offence type, sentence length and risk assessment, not by any individual’s protected characteristic/s.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

Other than the issues discussed above, we do not consider that there is likely to be any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability and will continue to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people impacted by the policy proposals.

Harassment and victimisation 

We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation as a result of these provisions, when they are implemented.

Advancing equality of opportunity

Consideration has been given to how the Act impacts on the duty to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity by meeting the needs of prisoners and offenders in the community who share a protected characteristic, where those needs are different from the needs of those who do not share that particular characteristic. The proposals are not considered likely to have an impact on equality of opportunity.

Fostering good relations

We do not consider that these measures would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Length of terrorism sentence with fixed licence period: Northern Ireland

Introduction

The sentencing and release regime for terrorists who commit offences attracting a maximum penalty of over two years’ imprisonment is designed to be consistent throughout the UK.

The Act will deal with an issue identified through a recent criminal case in Northern Ireland (R v Perry). This change will ensure that the terrorism sentence with a fixed licence period in Northern Ireland is handed down consistently with the equivalent sentence in England and Wales (the ‘sentence for offenders of particular concern’ (SOPC)).

In NI, sentences under Article 15A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 can be longer and less proportionate than those in England and Wales under the SOPC. Our proposed change will ensure that when a court in Northern Ireland is handing down this type of sentence, the length of the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness of the offending. Government action is necessary to ensure consistency, fairness, and legal compliance across UK jurisdictions.

Policy summary

This change will amend Northern Ireland legislation to ensure that judges may only pass a terrorism sentence with fixed licence period, under Article 15A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, that is commensurate with the seriousness of the original offence.

Article 15A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (“the 2008 Order”) was introduced by the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 (“the CTSA”) to create a new terrorism sentence with fixed licence period. This sentence was intended to replicate an equivalent sentence in England and Wales, the SOPC, which is found in section 278 of the Sentencing Code.

The SOPC is structured so that the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness of the original offence. In a 2024 case heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland (R v Perry) the court held that the terrorism sentence under Article 15A of the 2008 Order permits, in suitable cases, sentences which are not commensurate with the seriousness of the original offending.

The Government is seeking to amend the 2008 Order to restrict the handing down of this terrorism sentence in Northern Ireland to a length which is, in every case, commensurate with the seriousness of the offending for which the sentence was given. This will ensure that sentencing for terrorist offenders in Northern Ireland remains consistent with England and Wales.

Evidence and analysis

The measure involves a narrow legislative amendment to align sentencing provisions for terrorist offenders in NI under Article 15A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 with those in E&W under the Sentencing Act 2020 (as amended by the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021).

Any impacts are expected to be minimal, as this is a minor legislative amendment. The main affected groups are the Government (specifically the Ministry of Justice) and the judiciary in Northern Ireland. The Government publishes annual statistics on the use of terrorism powers, including data on convictions; there is not readily available data on particular protected characteristics of those convicted.

We have used available data on the Northern Ireland prison population^{[footnote 42]} as a proxy but it should be noted that this data is not specific to the cohort that will be affected by this measure:

• Sex – The male population increased from 1,607 to 1,787 while the female population increased from 78 to 90 during 2023/2024.

• Age - Prisoners aged between 30 and 39 years made up the largest proportion (37.7%) of the average daily immediate custody prison population and the remand population (37.6%)

• Religion and belief - During 2023/24, those identifying as Catholic represented the largest proportion of the average daily prison population at 51.5% (967), while Protestant denominations and Other Christians accounted for 31.8% (596)

Age

It is possible that the majority of people who will be in scope under this measure will be aged between 30 and 39 which reflects the make-up of the Northern Ireland prison population.

However, there is not readily available data on the age of those who would be affected by this change. Any impacts are expected to be minimal, as this is a minor legislative amendment.

Sex

It is likely that the majority of people who will be in scope under this measure will be legally recorded as male which reflects the make-up of the Northern Ireland prison population.

However, there is not readily available data on the sex of those who would be affected by this change. Any impacts are expected to be minimal, as this is a minor legislative amendment.

Religion and belief

It is possible that the majority of people who will be in scope under this measure will be Catholic which reflects the make-up of the Northern Ireland prison population.

There is not readily available data in relation to the religion and belief of those who would be affected by this change. Any impacts are expected to be minimal, as this is a minor legislative amendment.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of disability, gender reassignment, race, sexual orientation, marriage, and civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of individuals likely to be affected.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a policy would result in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic.

We assess that this amendment will not be directly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. We do not consider that this amendment would result in anyone being treated less favourably as a result of any protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those with a particular protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not share that characteristic.

We assess that this amendment will not be indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. Despite offenders in general being more likely to have protected characteristics of sex, race, disability than the general population, we do not consider that this provision would result in anyone with a protected characteristic being put at a particular disadvantage because of their protected characteristic. We assess that any particular disadvantage to people with protected characteristics is justified due to the need to manage the public safety risks posed by specific offenders.

The impact of the changes will be monitored closely by MoJ and HMPPS jointly. The IRTL also has routine oversight of the operation of the relevant Terrorism Acts and post-legislative scrutiny will conducted by the Government on this Act.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability for perpetrators and victims. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators and victims with disabilities.

Harassment and victimisation

We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation as a result of these provisions, when they are implemented.

Advancing equality of opportunity between different groups

We do not consider that this measure would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Fostering good relations

We do not consider that this measure would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Additional offence within scope of terrorism sentencing, release and management regime

Introduction

The Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) (TORER) Act 2020 ended the automatic early release of individuals who committed a terrorism offence carrying a maximum penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment and changed determinate offenders’ release eligibility from automatically at the halfway point of their sentence/custodial term to discretionary Parole Board release at the two-thirds point. The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 made further changes relating to the sentencing, release and management of TORER offenders.

The offence of breaching a foreign travel restriction order (FTRO) is not currently included in this regime, despite having a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and being a terrorism-specific offence and offences for breaching other terrorism related orders (e.g. TPIMs) being within scope of TORER.

Policy summary

This amendment will add breaching a FTRO to the terrorism sentencing, release and management regime to ensure consistency in the sentencing and management of individuals convicted of a terrorism offence with a maximum penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment.

In keeping with other terrorism offences covered by TORER, we are also ensuring that the offence of breaching an FTRO is capable of attracting a SOPC (and the equivalent sentence in Northern Ireland and Scotland): makes the offender eligible for certain specialist management on licence, including eligibility for personal search conditions (UK wide) and polygraph conditions (in England and Wales only); and is incapable of being found by the court at the point of sentencing to have been committed with a terrorist connection.

Evidence and analysis

The overrepresentation of some groups within scope of the Act reflects the makeup of the England and Wales prison population. Groups overrepresented in the prison population compared to the general population are as follows:

• those who are male;

• those aged between 30 and 39;

• those with a Black or Black British ethnicity, or from a mixed ethnic group; and,

• those who are Muslim.

The HMPPS Offender Equalities 2023/24 report contains the latest information on progress and achievements pertaining to equalities objectives, as stated in the Equality Act 2010.

When evaluating the impact of these measures on individuals with protected characteristics, we have considered the following protected characteristics where data are collected and are of sufficient quality for statistics to be meaningful:

Protected Characteristics

Age

As at 31 March 2024, a third (33.4% or 29,339) of prisoners were in the 30 to 39 age group, the second largest age group was the 40 to 49 age group, which covered 20.7% (18,175) of the prison population. The younger prison population has been falling since 2013 whereas the over 30 prison population has been steadily rising. Prisoners that were under 25 made up 13.1% (11,509) of the population.

Gender reassignment

There were 295 transgender prisoners in the 2024 data collection.

Race

In England and Wales, as at 31 March 2024, white prisoners made up 68.3% (10,809) of the remand prison population and 73.7% (52,000) of the sentenced prison population. At this same point in time, prisoners who self-declared as being from a black or black British ethnic background made up 12.9% (2,047) of the remand prison population and 12.1% (8,534) of the sentenced population. Prisoners who declared their ethnicity as Asian or Asian British represented 9.5% (1,506) of remand and 7.8% (5,530) of sentenced prisoners.

Religion or belief

In England and Wales, as at 31 March 2024, white prisoners made up 68.3% (10,809) of the remand prison population and 73.7% (52,000) of the sentenced prison population. At this same point in time, prisoners who self-declared as being from a black or black British ethnic background made up 12.9% (2,047) of the remand prison population and 12.1% (8,534) of the sentenced population. Prisoners who declared their ethnicity as Asian or Asian British represented 9.5% (1,506) of remand and 7.8% (5,530) of sentenced prisoners.

Sex

On 31 March 2024, males made up 95.9% (84,234) of the total prison population and females 4.1% (3,635).

Sexual orientation

On 31 March 2024, 97.0% (88,032) of prisoners who declared a sexual orientation reported that they were heterosexual.

There are currently no individuals serving a sentence for breaching an FTRO, so the change would not apply to any individual in the immediate term.

FTROs can only apply to terrorist offenders who are subject to notification requirements. We have used available data^{[footnote 43]} in relation to the terrorist offender cohort in prison, and available data^{[footnote 44]} on the wider prison population as a proxy. It should be noted that this group are not subject to notification requirements in prison but the vast majority are subject to notification requirements when they are released.

However, there is no data available to suggest that this measure is more or less likely to affect individuals with particular protected characteristics.

Age

It is possible that the majority of people who will be in scope under this measure will be aged between 30 and 39 which reflects the make-up of the prison and probation population.

However, there is not readily available data on the age of those who would be affected by this change. Any impacts are expected to be minimal, as this is a minor legislative amendment.

Race

It is possible that the majority of people who will be in scope under this measure will be Black or Black British ethnicity, or from a mixed ethnic group which reflects the make-up of the prison and probation population.

However, there is not readily available data on the race of those who would be affected by this change. Any impacts are expected to be minimal, as this is a minor legislative amendment.

Sexual orientation

We currently do not know the proportion of lesbian, gay or bisexual offenders. It is likely that the majority of people who will be in scope under this measure will be heterosexual which reflects the make-up of the prison and probation population.

Sex

It is likely that the majority of people who will be in scope under this measure will be male which reflects the make-up of the prison and probation population.

However, there is not readily available data on the sex of those who would be affected by this change. Any impacts are expected to be minimal, as this is a minor legislative amendment.

Religion and belief

Of the 254 persons in custody^{[footnote 45]} for terrorism and terrorism-connected offences in Great Britain with a self-declared religion, 161 were Muslim (63%). It is therefore likely that the majority of offenders who will be in scope under this measure will be Muslim which reflects the make-up of this cohort in prison.

However, there is not readily available data in relation to the religion and belief of other religions who would be affected by this change. Any impacts are expected to be minimal, as this is a minor legislative amendment.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of disability, gender reassignment, marriage, and civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of individuals likely to be affected.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a policy would result in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic.

We assess that this amendment will not be directly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. We do not consider that this amendment would result in anyone being treated less favourably as a result of any protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those with a particular protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not share that characteristic.

Any impacts are expected to be minimal, as this is a minor legislative amendment.

The rationale for making this amendment is to ensure consistency in the sentencing and management of individuals convicted of a terrorism offence with a maximum penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment.

We assess that this amendment will not be indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. We do not consider that this provision would result in anyone with a protected characteristic being put at a particular disadvantage because of their protected characteristic. We assess that any particular disadvantage to people with protected characteristics is justified due to the need to manage the public safety risks posed by specific offenders.

To mitigate the potential for indirect discrimination, operational guidance will be updated to incorporate this offence, which will be completed in time for it coming into force to help ensure the application of the offence is always necessary and proportionate and in accordance with the law.

The impact of the changes will be monitored closely by MoJ and HMPPS jointly. The IRTL also has routine oversight of the operation of the relevant Terrorism Acts and post-legislative scrutiny will conducted by the Government on this Act.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider there to be a risk of unlawful discrimination arising from disability and/or a duty to make reasonable adjustments as a result of these measures.

Harassment and victimisation

We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation as a result of these provisions, when they are implemented.

Advancing equality of opportunity between different groups

We do not consider that this measure would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Fostering good relations

We do not consider that this measure would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Retail crime: low value shoplifting

Introduction

This policy is to repeal section 22A in the Magistrates’ Court Act (MCA) 1980 which was inserted by section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (ASBCPA) 2014 on 13 May 2014.

The policy objective is to repeal section 22A of the MCA (and also section 176 of the ASBCPA), which states that shop thefts of £200 or less must be tried summarily in magistrates’ courts. Repealing this measure aims to ensure the police take low value shoplifting offences more seriously, to encourage shopkeepers to report incidents and to alter the public perception that perpetrators face minimal consequences for low value shoplifting.

Policy summary

Under section 22A of the MCA, shoplifters who steal goods equal to or below £200 are tried summarily in the magistrates’ court unless they elect trial in the Crown Court. The measure was introduced to streamline the prosecution process for low value cases of shoplifting, enabling the police to deal with cases swiftly and prosecute them directly. However, the measure has negatively impacted the perception among retailers that perpetrators of low-value shoplifting will go unpunished, and that the offence is not being taken seriously. Lord Foster of Bath was quoted as saying that the measure was “serving in practice to decriminalise shop theft where the value of goods does not exceed £200”.^{[footnote 46]}

According to Police Recorded Crime statistics, shoplifting has increased by 29% in the year to June 2024, yet the British Retail Consortium say that it is also underreported – possibly because of the perception that if the goods stolen are worth under £200 the police will not take any action. The BRC’s Crime Survey (2024) showed that incidents of customer theft increased from 8 million to 16.7 million. This figure is about 40 times higher than the latest Police Recorded Crime statistics for shop theft, which were 469,788 cases.

The aim of the policy is to repeal the ineffective legislation and change the perception that shop theft of £200 and under will not be taken seriously by the police. Another objective of the policy is to encourage increased reporting of shop theft of all amounts.

Evidence and analysis

The proposed change will have a direct impact on those defendants who are convicted of theft from a shop. Under section 22A of the MCA, any shop theft of £200 or less may only be tried summarily in the magistrates’ court and subject to a maximum custodial sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment unless the defendant elects Crown Court trial. By repealing this measure, theft from a shop will be tried as theft (general) – an either way offence with a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

This group of defendants could be affected by longer periods of custody due to the classification of the offence changing from summary only to triable either way, and thereby an increase in the maximum custodial sentence under theft (general).

Sources of information

The data included below shows the number of defendants who would be affected by this change when applied to defendant statistics for 2023. Detailed data on Crown Court and magistrates’ court outcomes is only available for three of the nine protected characteristics – age, sex and race (which we have used for our analysis). Due to limitations in data collection, we are not currently able to identify the like impacts of this policy on other protected characteristics. Some data are not available, whereas some other sources of data are available but are not sufficiently reliable.

Our analysis below is based on the most recent data available from 2023. The main source of information used for this analysis is the MoJ’s Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly – Accredited Official Statistics. The latest census with detailed ethnicity statistics in the UK is the 2021 Census, which was published in December 2022.

Availability of data

Data are presented where known, therefore where an individual’s sex, ethnicity or age is not stated or unknown, they are omitted from analysis.

Sex

There is a higher proportion of males in the affected group for the theft from shop offence than females. Of the 30,472 defendants prosecuted in the magistrates’ court for theft from shop in 2023, 74.1% were male and 25.9% female. The proportion of female defendants is higher for theft from a shop than general theft, where male defendants represent 80.7% of those proceeded against in the magistrates’ court compared to 19.3% female.

Race

Where ethnicity was known (9,706 of the 31,242 defendants proceeded against for theft from shop in the magistrates’ courts were recorded as unknown in 2023), the proportion of white defendants in the affected group is greater than the proportion of the general population for England and Wales (they comprise of 90.5% of theft from shop defendants but 81.7% of the general population). There is an underrepresentation of Asian people as a proportion of the defendants (2.4%) relative to the total population (9.3%). Defendants that identify as black (3.5% of defendants, and 4% of the population) or other (1% of defendants, and 2.1% of the population) are also underrepresented in the affected group. Defendants who identify as mixed are generally proportionate to the population (2.7% of defendants, and 2.9% of the population).

The latest ethnicity data about the general population produced by the Office for National Statistics is the 2021 United Kingdom Census, which could be outdated and no longer representative of the population in 2024. Therefore, the comparisons between the defendant population and the general population could draw inaccurate conclusions.^{[footnote 47]}

Age

Adult defendants make up most theft from shop defendants proceeded against in the magistrates’ courts in 2023. Defendants aged 25 to 29 (11.2%), 30 to 39 (40.3%) and 40 to 49 (28.2%) accounted for a combined 79.7% of theft from shop defendants in 2023. Children (under 18) accounted for 2.8% and young adults (18-20 years old) accounted for 2.8% of theft from shop defendants in 2023.

Other protected characteristics

We are not currently able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, or sexual orientation. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of defendants likely to be affected. Some data are not available, whereas some other sources of data are available but are not sufficiently reliable. We are, however, looking at ways to obtain relevant new data, improve the reliability of other data sources, and make better use of unpublished data to provide additional evidence with regard to equality in the criminal justice system.

Victims, witnesses, and the general public

We are not able to identify by protected characteristics the victims or witnesses involved in the cases of the specific cohort of defendants affected by this change. However, most victims of low-level shoplifting are retail businesses.

Given that the policy rationale behind this change is that it will alter the perception of shoplifting by repealing the financial threshold (thereby increasing the maximum custodial penalty for a theft from shop offence to 7 years), we consider that the policy will have a positive impact on victims and witnesses. Tougher sanctions on low level retail crime could act as a deterrent for offending and encourage more reports from retailers and a more effective response from the police (61% of retailers rated police response as poor or very poor according to the BRC Crime Report 2024).^{[footnote 48]}

Assault on a retail worker offence

Theft is also linked to violence and abuse in retail spaces.^{[footnote 49]} This policy, alongside the introduction of broader measures to tackle retail crime including the introduction of a new ‘assault on a retail worker’ offence, will positively impact retail workers by deterring defendants and providing better protection for retail workers.

A new offence of assaulting a retail worker may have indirect discrimination impacts. There is a perception that offenders for shop theft are young/adolescents, however, the data for those who are caught and convicted across the magistrates’ and Crown Court shows that offenders aged 30 to 49 accounted for more than two-thirds (69.1%) of sentencing occasions for shop theft (20,003 occasions) in 2023. Therefore, if a new offence of assaulting a retail worker is introduced, there may be a differential impact on those aged 30-49.

Across all age ranges (age 10+), male theft from shop offenders accounted for around three-quarters (74%) of sentencing occasions across the magistrates’ and Crown Court in 2023. However, theft from shop has the highest proportion of female offenders than other acquisitive crimes (26% for theft from shops compared to 6.5% for robbery). Therefore, if a new offence of assaulting a retail worker is introduced, there may be a differential impact on male offenders.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a policy would result in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Our assessment is that these changes are not directly discriminatory within the meaning of the EA, as they apply in the same way to all individuals regardless of their protected characteristics. No defendant will be treated less favourably in relation to any protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not. Our initial assessment is that these changes are not indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the EA as explained below.

In general, non-white ethnic groups appear to be over-represented at most stages throughout the CJS, compared with the white ethnic group, and among non-white ethnic groups, black and mixed individuals are often the most over-represented. This trend is not reflected in the statistics for theft from shop defendants proceeded against in the magistrates’ court in 2023. Furthermore, we believe any risk is mitigated as this policy change does not alter a defendant’s right to elect for a jury trial in the Crown Court nor should it affect where a case is heard.

There is a higher proportion of males (74.1%) in the affected group for the theft from shop offence than female (25.9%). However, we do not consider that this overrepresentation will likely result in any particular disadvantage for defendants with these protected characteristics. Our assessment is that the changes described by this policy proposal are a proportionate means of achieving our aim to better protect retail businesses and workers by altering the perception that low level retail crime goes unpunished. Overall, therefore, we do not consider that these policy changes are likely to result in any unlawful indirect discrimination.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that there is likely to be any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability and will continue to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people impacted by the policy proposals.

Harassment and victimisation

We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 as a result of this change.

Advancing equality of opportunity

We have had regard to this aspect of the equality duty but do not consider that these changes will affect the advancement of equality of opportunity, although there will be positive impacts for victims which may affect certain groups more.

Fostering good relations

Our assessment is that these changes are unlikely to impact on fostering good relations between groups with different protected characteristics.

Grooming statutory aggravating factor

Introduction

The Act introduces a new statutory aggravating factor for grooming. This will require the courts to consider grooming when sentencing for specified sexual offences committed against those under 18, going further than existing sentencing guidelines. This will ensure that those who groom children or take advantage of grooming of children by others, including grooming gang members, face the toughest possible sentences for their crimes.

Policy summary

This new statutory aggravating factor captures offenders whose offending is facilitated by, or involves, the grooming of a person under 18. The grooming itself need not be sexual. The grooming may be undertaken by the offender or a third party and committed against the victim of the underlying offence or a third-party. An aggravating factor makes an offence more serious and must be considered by the court when deciding the length of the sentence. This will include (but is not limited to) offences committed by individuals involved in grooming gangs.

The measure will capture models of exploitation not currently directly addressed by existing culpability factors in the Sentencing Guidelines, for example where an offender assaults a victim who has been groomed by another member of the grooming gang or where a person under 18 has been groomed to recruit others, who are then sexually assaulted. The legislation will also specify that there is nothing preventing the courts from applying the factor to other relevant offences or to offences committed against adult victims.

Evidence and analysis

When considering the impact of the measure on people with protected characteristics, we considered the latest available Criminal Justice statistics (year ending June 2024) collected by the Ministry of Justice. We considered statistics on convictions for sexual offences and where possible, statistics on specific offences relating to indecent images of children which are part of the measure. We compared these with data on the general sentenced population.

This measure aggravates offences only where the victim is under 18, and the offender is 18 or over, and where the offending was facilitated by or involved grooming. We have not been able to consider its potential effects on the protected characteristics of this specific cohort of offenders as it is not possible to identify all sexual offences with a child victim, as age is not always specified in the offence, and we do not hold data on the prevalence of grooming in relation to sexual offences.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

This measure is not directly discriminatory, as set out in the Equality Act. The measure will apply in the same way to all individuals who are in scope, regardless of their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

Age

Offenders aged 21 – 49 years old are likely to be disproportionally impacted by this measure. Offenders aged 30 – 49 are overrepresented within those sentenced for sexual offences (45%) and offenders aged 21 – 39 are overrepresented within those sentenced for specific indecent images of children offences (“IIOCs”) (44%). 26% and 29% of the general population fall into the 30 – 49 and 18 – 39 age brackets respectively.

This measure is more likely to affect those in the age range of 21-49 than other offenders. This is because those aged 21–49 years are overrepresented in the cohort to which this measure applies. We do not, however, consider that this overrepresentation will likely result in any particular disadvantage. Our assessment is that this measure is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate policy aim of requiring courts to consider grooming behaviour when sentencing for specified sexual offences committed against those under 18.

Disability

We do not consider this measure to be indirectly discriminatory to offenders with a disability in relation to their protected characteristics.

Gender reassignment

We do not consider this measure to be indirectly discriminatory to offenders who have undergone gender reassignment in relation to their protected characteristics.

Marriage and civil partnership

We do not consider this measure to be indirectly discriminatory to offenders in relation to their protected characteristics of marriage and civil partnership status.

Pregnancy and maternity

We do not consider this measure to be indirectly discriminatory to offenders in relation to their protected characteristics of pregnancy and maternity.

Race

Based on the data available, amongst those sentenced for sexual offences (not including specified IIOCs) no particular ethnic group is overrepresented and the measure will therefore not result in disproportionate impacts on this basis.

In the year ending June 2024, where ethnicity is stated, 83% of those sentenced for a sexual offence were of White ethnicity, 8% were of Asian ethnicity, 6% were Black ethnicity, 2% were of Mixed and 2% of other ethnicities. In England and Wales, 82% of the general population are of White ethnicity, 9% are of Asian ethnicity, 4% are of Black ethnicity, 3% are of Mixed and 2% of other ethnicities.

The most common sentencing outcome across all ethnic groups for sexual offences (not including specified IIOCs) is immediate custody. However, where the measure is applied and immediate custody is imposed, offenders from certain ethnic groups may spend longer in custody due to differences in average custodial sentence length (ASCL). In the year ending June 2024, where ethnicity is known, White offenders were sentenced to an ASCL of 69 months, Asian offenders to 76 months, Black offenders to 75 months, and those of Mixed or Other ethnicities to 60 and 61 months respectively. This trend has fluctuated across recent years, with those of Mixed ethnicities having the highest average custodial sentence length in 2021 and those of Black ethnicity in 2020.

For the specified IIOCs, there is a small overrepresentation of offenders of White ethnicity within those sentenced. Where ethnicity is stated, 93% were of White ethnicity, 4% were of Asian ethnicity, 1% were of Black ethnicity, 1% were of Mixed and 1% of other ethnicities.

There are also differences between ethnic groups in the proportion of offenders sentenced to immediate custody and average sentence length where immediate custody is imposed, in the year ending June 2024, 19% of those sentenced who were of White ethnicity, 6% of those of Asian ethnicity, 7% of those of Black ethnicity 19% of Mixed and 13% of Other ethnicities received immediate custodial sentences. The ASCL was 19 months for those of White ethnicity, 26 months for Asian ethnicity, and 26 months for Mixed ethnicities.

We acknowledge that, based on 1. the small differences identified in ASCL between ethnic groups for those sentenced for both sexual offences and specified IIOCs and 2. the small overrepresentation of White offenders amongst those sentenced for specified IIOCs, this measure might indirectly impact those from certain ethnic groups more than others. However, we consider it unlikely that any difference in impact will be substantial. Our assessment is that this measure is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate policy aim of requiring courts to consider grooming when sentencing for specified sexual offences committed against those under 18.

Religion or belief

We do not consider this measure to be indirectly discriminatory to offenders in relation to their protected characteristics of religion or belief.

Sex

Men are more likely to be impacted by this measure as they are overrepresented amongst those sentenced for sexual offences. In the year ending June 2024, men accounted for 97% of sentences for a sexual offence and 99% of sentences for specified IIOCs, in comparison to 78% of those sentenced overall. Men and boys make up 49% of the population of England and Wales. Our assessment is that this measure is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate policy aim of requiring courts to consider grooming when sentencing for specified sexual offences committed against those under 18.

Sexual orientation

We do not consider this measure to be indirectly discriminatory to offenders in relation to their protected characteristic of sexual orientation.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that there is likely to be any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability and will continue to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people impacted by the policy proposals.

Harassment and victimisation

We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 as a result of this change.

Advancing equality of opportunity

The measure is likely to advance opportunities for children and young people by enabling greater protections through the strengthening of sentences for those who commit sexual offences against those under 18 involving grooming.

Fostering good relations

This measure is not expected to have any significant impact on fostering good relations.

Introducing a presumption in favour of anonymity for firearms officers

Introduction

This policy introduces a presumption in favour of anonymity for firearms officers via a provision in the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

The policy objective is to introduce a presumption of anonymity as the starting point for judicial consideration of applications for anonymity for firearms officers who are charged with offences relating to, and committed during, their duties as a firearms officer and who are subject to criminal trial following a shooting. Anonymity here refers only to reporting restrictions on the publication of information that would be likely to lead to the identification of the defendant, including by traditional media, online media, and individuals online.

Policy summary

In accordance with the open justice principle, the general rule is that proceedings should be held in public; evidence must be communicated publicly; and fair, accurate and contemporaneous media reporting of proceedings should not be prevented unless strictly necessary. In line with this principle, there is currently no presumption of anonymity or automatic anonymity in place for any adult defendants in criminal courts.

Judges do have the power to grant discretionary reporting restrictions to prevent the name of a defendant being published in exceptional circumstances. These include cases where revealing the identity of the defendant would pose a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice or a risk to life. This only applies once the person has been charged. Suspects who have not yet been charged with a criminal offence should not be routinely named.

This measure will introduce a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers who are charged with offences involving the discharge of their firearm relating to, and committed during, their duties as a firearms officer and who are subject to a criminal trial following a shooting. The presumption will apply to both fatal and non-fatal incidents and will only be available and apply up to the point of sentence. It will not change the current rules around pre-charge anonymity.

Anonymity in these measures means that the defendant’s name, address and date of birth will be withheld both in court and in the listing information from the first hearing and reporting restrictions will be placed on the publication of information that would be likely to lead to the identification of the defendant by any person or organisation, including traditional media, online media, and individuals online. There will also be a power for the court to consider an application for anonymity to continue post-sentence. Anonymity will not be put in place without the court having considered all factors relevant to the issue of reporting restrictions and whether those factors justify departing from the presumption of ordering reporting restrictions. The media will also continue to be able to make representations to the court to argue that anonymity should not apply in any particular case.

This measure will only apply in England and Wales. The presumption of anonymity will apply to firearms officers in all territorial police forces in England and Wales, as well as firearms officers in the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the British Transport Police, Ministry of Defence Police, officers of the National Crime Agency, and military personnel where they are deployed to assist the police in Military Aid to the Civil Authority (MACA) tasks. It will not apply to any other police officers who are not acting as firearms officers.

The presumption of anonymity will apply to both the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court. Courts will retain the discretion not to grant an anonymity order or to order reporting restrictions if it would be contrary to the interests of justice. The media will also continue to be able to make representations to the court to argue that anonymity should not apply in any particular case. Whilst the presumption means that granting anonymity will be the starting point, when considering any application from the media, the court must consider the principles of open justice and act in a manner that is compatible with the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

The rationale for introducing a presumption for firearms officers is that firearms officers face greater exposure to dangerous individuals and organised crime groups than most other types of police officer. Officers and their families are therefore likely to be at increased risk if their identity is revealed following an armed incident, which is disproportionate unless they are found guilty of the charges.

Lethal force is used by police very rarely in the UK. In the year ending March 2024 there were 2 incidents in which a police officer intentionally discharged a firearm at a person. This is 0.01% of the 17,589 firearms operations over the same period. Of these instances, a very small proportion are assessed as potentially criminal. In these instances, anonymity can be granted through a discretionary order. This measure will mean that the starting point will be that anonymity should be granted.

Evidence and analysis: context

Affected groups

The proposed change will have a direct impact on those defendants who:

• Are charged with an offence which involved the discharge of a firearm;

• at the time the alleged offence took place, were authorised to use the firearm as a firearms officer; and

• the offence concerned the exercise of the defendant’s functions as a firearms officer.

Defendants

Sex

There is an overrepresentation of male police officers who act as firearms officers, compared to the general population. Figures published by the Home Office1 show that as of 31 March 2024, 64.6% of all police officers in England and Wales are male compared to 90.2% of authorized firearms officers (AFOs) being male2. This is roughly proportional to the total number of male and female defendants in the criminal justice system, with 91.3% (86,266) being male and 8.7% (8,208) being female3.

Ethnicity

Statistics on the demographics of firearms teams and AFOs are not readily available but, drawing on the work of Jones et al. (2013)4, Cox et al. (2020)2, found that 29 out of 6,584 AFOs identified as Black/Black British (out of 35 forces that responded to their inquiry). That figure represented 0.4 percent of the AFO population compared with 7.3 percent of the Police Service of England and Wales workforce (Home Office, 2020)1. 14 of the 43 Home Office forces did not have a single ethnic minority AFO2. This is disproportionate to the demographics of defendants in the criminal justice system overall, with 7.1% (6,574) of defendants identifying as Black and 48.3% (45,633) identifying as White3. However, we believe that any particular disadvantage arising from this measure is justified on the basis that the measure is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Other protected characteristics

We are not currently able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, and sexual orientation. Centrally held data for criminal courts in England & Wales does not include this information and it would only be obtainable at disproportionate costs.

Victims and Witnesses

Given lethal force is used by police very rarely in the UK, it is difficult to draw assumptions on the protected characteristics of victims and witnesses involved in cases affected by this change.

It is also important to note that this measure does not mean that anonymity will be put in place automatically and therefore any impact on victims and witnesses will be mitigated by the fact that there will still be judicial discretion to disapply the presumption where it is contrary to the interests of justice.

Mitigations

This policy will not empower the court to order different or greater reporting restrictions than the court can currently order on a discretionary basis in such cases. It will only alter the starting point for judges’ considerations when issuing an order to impose reporting restrictions. The court will retain the discretion not to apply reporting restrictions, on the facts of individual cases, if restrictions are contrary to the interests of justice.

This measure will not extend to or change reporting restrictions for suspects pre-charge. It will also apply only up to the point of conviction.

This measure has a narrow scope since it only applies to offences that are committed in line with the officer’s duties as a firearms officer, and not to any other police officers who use force in their duties. It will also only apply where the offence relates to an incident where a firearm has been discharged by the defendant and where officers have been deployed with appropriate authorisation as firearms officers at the time of the offence. Any other weapon or use of force by the police (aside from a conventional firearm), such as tasers and irritant spray will not be in scope of this presumption.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when, because a person has a protected characteristic, that person would be treated less favourably than those who do not share a protected characteristic. We do not consider that introducing a presumption in favour of anonymity for firearms officers would result in officers being treated less favourably because of their protected characteristics. We consider that this policy is therefore not directly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when the effect of a policy puts those sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not. We are aware that some protected groups such as sex and race will be over-represented within the group of firearms officers as compared to the general population; however, our view is that any particular disadvantage caused by the measure will be mitigated by the fact that there will still be judicial discretion to disapply the presumption where it is contrary to the interests of justice. We believe that any particular disadvantage arising from this measure is justified on the basis that the measure is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Discrimination arising from disability and duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that there is likely to be any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability and will continue to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people impacted by the policy proposal.

Harassment and victimisation

We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 as a result of this change.

Advancing equality of opportunity

This measure has no effect in relation to the advancement of equality of opportunity.

Fostering good relations

This measure has no effect in relation to the aim of fostering good relations between those with different protected characteristics.

Removal of the limitation period in child sexual abuse cases

Introduction

Limitation law sets time limits within which a party must bring a claim, or give notice of a claim, to the other party in a legal dispute.

The present law on limitation in England and Wales is primarily contained in the Limitation Act 1980. This Act sets a range of time limits for various types of civil claims.

Child sexual abuse claims are normally treated as personal injury claims and are usually subject to a three-year limitation period. This means that claims must be brought within three years of the abuse happening or the victim having knowledge of the abuse or alternatively, when the victim attains the age of 21 if they were under 18 when the abuse occurred.

Policy summary

In their final report the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) recommended that the UK Government makes the necessary changes to legislation in order to ensure: The removal of the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in respect of their abuse; and the express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants to show that a fair trial is not possible.

These provisions would apply whether or not the current three-year period has already started to run or has expired, except where claims have been dismissed by a court or settled by agreement. They would, however, only apply to claims brought by victims and survivors, not claims brought on behalf of victims and survivors’ estates.

Following a public consultation, which ran from 15 May 2024 to 10 July 2024, the government accepted these recommendations and has agreed to their implementation.

Evidence and analysis

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 7.5% of adults aged 18 to 74 years experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16 years (3.1 million people); this includes both adult and child perpetrators^{[footnote 50]} .

However, measuring the scale and nature of child sexual abuse can be difficult because it is usually hidden from view. Victims often feel unable to report their experiences and adults are not always able to recognise that abuse is taking place. As a result, administrative data sources do not represent the full scale of the issue. There are no current surveys measuring children’s experiences of sexual abuse because of the challenges in asking this age group about such a sensitive topic. We therefore do not know definitively how many children are currently experiencing, or have experienced, sexual abuse.

Information about adults who suffered child sexual abuse is also limited and incomplete for similar reasons to those outlined above.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

These measures are considered unlikely to be directly discriminatory as they are not likely to treat people less favourably on account of a protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination

In 2019 the majority (80%) of child victims of sexual offences were female^{[footnote 51]} . Women are more likely than men to have experienced abuse before the age of 16 years, with around one in four women and one in six men having experienced it^{[footnote 52]} . As mentioned below, there is also some evidence that disabled children are more likely to be at risk of child sexual abuse than children with no disabilities.

However, ultimately there is very limited available data on child sexual abuse and this makes it difficult to come to a definitive view on the potential for #### Indirect discrimination.

We consider that these measures are unlikely to result in someone with a protected characteristic suffering a particular disadvantage when compared to someone who does not share the protected characteristic. The removal of the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse is considered to be a proportionate means of improving support for all victims.

Discrimination arising from disability and duty to make reasonable adjustments

A literature review by the Independent Inquiry into child sexual abuse considering abuse in residential schools stated that there is ‘a consensus that disabled children are at a greater risk of sexual abuse than their non-disabled peers, and most estimates put this increased risk at around three times that of non-disabled children’^{[footnote 53]}. While an international study, published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health journal in 2022^{[footnote 54]} says that disabled children are twice as likely to face neglect and/or sexual, physical or mental abuse than children with no disabilities.

However, as noted above ultimately there is currently very limited available data about victims of child sexual abuse which makes it difficult to reach a definitive view about the impact on any protected characteristic.

We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for children or adults with disabilities who are involved in bringing Child Sexual Abuse claims.

Harassment and victimisation

We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation because of these proposals.

Advancing equality of opportunity

Although the data is limited, we consider that these measures may impact positively on the duty to advance equality of opportunity in relation to the protected characteristics of sex and disability. According to the limited available data, these groups may be more at risk of child sexual abuse and therefore be better able to have their needs met from any changes made.

Fostering good relations

We have considered how these measures might impact on the need to foster good relations between people who share protected characteristics and those who do not. Overall, we do not consider that the measures will be particularly relevant to this limb of the PSED.

Decriminalisation of abortion offences for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies

Introduction

All women in England and Wales can have access to safe, regulated abortions on the NHS under our current laws.

The Government maintains a neutral stance on changes to the criminal law on abortion in England and Wales and it is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortions should take place.

The House of Commons voted to add NC1, tabled by Tonia Antoniazzi MP, to the Crime and Policing Act 2026 following debate during Report Stage of the Bill on 17 June 2025. This is now Section 246 of the Act. The general equality duty, set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, does not apply to Section 246 of the C&P Act as it does not apply to primary legislation. However, the duty provides a useful structure for analysing the potential effects of Section 246.

Policy summary

The Sponsor’s stated aim of section 246 is to ensure that the criminal offences related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (“the 1929 Act”), no longer apply to women acting in relation to their own pregnancy at any gestation. It is important to note that the section does not affect the Abortion Act 1967, which will continue to provide the legal framework for access to abortion services.

Section 246 removes criminal liability for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies and this means it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy regardless of the number of weeks of gestation, including beyond 24 weeks. It would also not be a criminal offence for a woman to intentionally deceive a registered medical practitioner about the gestation of her pregnancy in order to procure an abortion by pills via pills by post beyond the 10-week time limit.

It is important to note that section 246 expressly applies to a “woman”, reflecting the position in the relevant offences which capture conduct against a “woman” and a “mother”. It is the Government’s view that as a matter of statutory construction, “woman” must mean, in the context of sections 58 and 59 and the 1929 Act, a person who is biologically female, and “mother” must mean, in the context of the 1929 Act, a person who is biologically female and pregnant. It is therefore the Government’s view that the offences capture acts in relation to (or by) pregnant trans men regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. By extension, section 246 will operate in a way that removes criminal liability for pregnant trans men when they act in relation to their own pregnancies.

Impact on protected characteristics

Our analysis illustrates the protected characteristics of those proceeded against under sections 58 & 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 between 2017-2024.

When assessing the equality impacts of section 246 against the protected characteristics, we consider that the protected characteristics of sex and pregnancy and maternity are most relevant. We have also concluded that these characteristics are best considered together, rather than in isolation. This is because section 246 only has effect in relation to pregnant women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. As a result, a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy could no longer be prosecuted. We would also expect fewer pregnant women to be prosecuted overall, although women who are not pregnant, and pregnant women who are acting in relation to another’s pregnancy, will continue to be caught by the relevant offences.

The criminal offences will continue to apply to everyone else who is not a pregnant woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy. The cohort of offenders who do not fall in this category would therefore not change.

Sources of information

The source of information used for analysis on defendant equalities impacts is the MOJ’s Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly – Accredited Official Statistics^{[footnote 55]} and our analysis is based on the most recent data available up to December 2024. Detailed data on Crown Court and Magistrates’ outcomes is only available for three of the nine protected characteristics – age, sex, and race. We do not currently have data on other protected characteristics.

Prosecutions under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 are low in volume. There has been a total of 26 prosecutions (of which 10 resulted in convictions) between 2017 and 2024. However, the data below is limited to the 24 cases where the sex of the defendant is known. Where an individual’s sex is not stated or unknown, they have been omitted from analysis.

Analysis of impacts: sex and pregnancy, and maternity

The majority of abortion-related offences proceeded against have involved male defendants, amounting to 71% of cases (17 out of 24 cases where the defendant’s sex was recorded). Female defendants make up 29% of cases (7 out of 24) proceeded against.

However, it is not possible to identify how many of the women within the 29% cohort were pregnant and acting in relation to their own pregnancy. We are aware from reported cases that some involved pregnant women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. As such, Section 246 is expected to lead to a reduction in the prosecutions of women. However, the extent of this the likely impact cannot be quantified.

Other protected characteristics

As outlined above, we consider that the protected characteristics of sex and pregnancy and maternity are the most relevant ones in assessing the impact of section 246. Defendants with other protected characteristics are not expected to be particularly affected by this policy. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that abortion-related offences are committed by individuals who share any other combination of protected characteristics in the same way as those who share the protected characteristics of sex and pregnancy/maternity. These characteristics are therefore not considered relevant in evaluating the impact of section 246.

Direct discrimination

Section 246 does not involve direct discrimination as it only disapplies the criminal law for pregnant women acting in relation to their own pregnancies, rather than women generally. In relation to sex, men may be treated less favorably than pregnant women acting in relation to their pregnancies, but not less favorably than women in general, as cohorts of women – those who are not pregnant or those who are acting in relation to another’s pregnancy – would still be criminally liable under the relevant abortion offences.

Similarly, it would also not amount to direct discrimination on grounds of pregnancy as pregnant women acting in relation to another’s pregnancy are still captured by the relevant abortion offences. Moreover, not being pregnant is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

Indirect discrimination

Section 246 only disapplies the criminal law from pregnant women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. The relevant protected characteristics are therefore the specific combination of sex and pregnancy and maternity. There is arguably an indirect differential treatment between individuals (including men and women) acting outside the context of their own pregnancies, and pregnant women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. However, our assessment is that this would constitute a very indirect, even remote, form of differential treatment.

The aim of both the Sponsor and Parliament is to ensure that the criminal law continues to appropriately addresses actions falling outside the framework of the Abortion Act 1967, while also protecting pregnant women from prosecution when acting in relation to their own pregnancies. This reflects recognition by Parliament of the particular vulnerability of this group. It is reasonable to consider this is a legitimate aim and the means of achieving it are proportionate. Accordingly, section 246 does not constitute unlawful indirect discrimination.

Pardons for women convicted of abortion offences when acting in relation to their own pregnancies and deletion of relevant records

Introduction

Animal sexual abuse

Introduction

Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 criminalises sexual intercourse with an animal.

Over time, advocacy groups and members of the veterinary profession raised concerns that the offence, as originally framed, failed to capture the full scope of conduct involved in animal sexual abuse. They noted that it did not adequately capture non-penile penetrative acts or other sexual activity involving animals where “unnecessary suffering” could not be demonstrated, and so could not be prosecuted under either section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 or an offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. This includes conduct such as using an animal to make contact with a person’s genitals, oral sexual acts and instances in which animals are trained to perform sexual acts with humans.

Veterinarians acting as expert witnesses in sexual abuse cases had expressed further concerns the law did not clearly address sexual acts involving dead animals. They also highlighted evidential difficulties, particular where abuse was documented only through photographic or video material. In cases where animals had been sedated, it was often not possible to establish whether the animal was alive at the time.

Taking these concerns into account, the Government concluded that legislative change was required and chose to replace the offence at section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 with a broader offence of sexual activity with an animal.

Policy summary

The offence of sexual activity with an animal captures intentional touching of an animal, whether the animal is alive or dead, and where the touching is sexual. This encompasses penetrative sexual acts with animals, but also a broader range of sexual activity such as oral sex with an animal or training an animal to perform oral sex on an individual.

The new offence better reflects the breadth and seriousness of animal sexual abuse and enables the criminalisation of this offending behaviour. Importantly, it does not require “unnecessary suffering” to be established in order to secure prosecutions for such conduct.

Evidence and analysis

The offence of intercourse with an animal is the closest offence to the new offence of sexual activity with an animal. However, it is an extremely rare offence. Between 2020 and 2024, there were 12 convictions.

The small number of cases and limited availability of sentencing remarks for the offence of intercourse with an animal means that there is a restricted evidence base from which to assess its impact on defendants. This also makes it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons with other offences, or to extrapolate likely impacts arising from the new offence.

Sex

The offence of sexual activity with an animal could be committed by individuals of both sexes. Available data indicates that between 2020 and 2024, convictions under section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 involved eight male and four female offenders. We do not have a clear indication of offending patterns of different sexes; however, there is little evidence to suggest that there would be a substantial sex‑based impact. We will continue to monitor for any such impacts as the policy evolves.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage, and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, or sexual orientation. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of defendants likely to be affected.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

The offence of sexual activity with an animal applies to all perpetrators, regardless of their protected characteristics. As a result, this measure is not directly discriminatory within the meaning of the 2010 Act because it does not treat people less favourably due to their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination arises where a policy, practice or provision is applied in the same way for everyone but results in those who share a protected characteristic suffering a particular disadvantage when compared with those who do not share the protected characteristic.

The available data show that more men commit the existing intercourse with an animal offence. We do not expect there to be a substantial difference between the number of men and women that are convicted of the new offence, but it is possible that men are more likely to be particularly disadvantaged. To the extent that men, or any other group sharing a protected characteristic, are more likely to be particularly disadvantaged, we do not consider that this amounts to indirect discrimination. Any sexual activity with an animal is wrong and the broader offence ensures that the full scope of conduct involved in animal sexual abuse is criminalised. The offence is therefore considered a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of preventing such harm and protecting both animal welfare and the public interest.

Discrimination arising from disability and duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators with disabilities.

Harassment and victimisation

Advancing equality of opportunity

As set out above, the offence applies to all perpetrators regardless of their protected characteristics. However, it is possible that more men than women will be perpetrators engaging in this behaviour. We do not consider this measure advances equality of opportunity for any particular protected group. Rather, the creation of this offence is aimed at deterring future offending, regardless of the characteristics of those involved.

Fostering good relations

We do not consider that this offence would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

New sexual offences against children under 16

Introduction

The new offences in section 81 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 are in response to recommendation 1 of Baroness Casey’s National Audit on Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse^{[footnote 56]}, which recommended that, “The law in England and Wales should be changed so adults who intentionally penetrate the vagina, anus or mouth of a child under 16 receive mandatory charges of rape.”

There are a number of sex offences which cover sexual activity with a child. However, currently, where a complainant is aged 13–15, cases of rape (or other behaviour of comparable seriousness) are considered under sections 1 to 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the 2003 Act), which apply generally (that is, regardless of the age of the perpetrator or complainant). In order to secure a conviction under those provisions, prosecutors must prove lack of consent and lack of reasonable belief in consent, which Baroness Casey found can lead to less serious charges where a child appears to consent – despite in some cases being subject to grooming and exploitation.

Section 81 inserts into the 2003 Act three new offences of rape, assault by penetration and causing or inciting sexual activity, which apply where the complainant is under 16 and the perpetrator is 18 or over. The new offences will exist alongside existing child sex offences. Whether to bring charges in any individual case, and which offence to charge, will always be a decision for the independent Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

However, the Government’s intention is that these three new offences would be used to prosecute cases of sexual activity involving penetration between adults and children aged 13, 14, or 15 in most cases, and that cases involving children under 13 will continue to be prosecuted under sections 5 to 8 of the 2003 Act. We expect that use of the existing offences that apply to those under 16 will be limited, consistent with the approach for the existing offences against children under 13, where CPS guidance prioritises the more serious charges.

Policy summary

The effect of the new offences is as follows:

• Under new section 8A, where a person aged 18 or over intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of a child under 16, with their penis, that will amount to rape of a child under 16. Where the child is aged 13-15, the prosecution will need to prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief the child was 16 or over.

• Under new section 8B, where a person aged 18 or over intentionally and sexually penetrates the vagina or anus of a child under 16, with a part of their body or anything else, that will amount to assault of a child under 16 by penetration. Where the child is aged 13-15, the prosecution will need to prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief the child was 16 or over.

• Under new section 8C, where a person aged 18 or over causes or incites a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving specified types of penetration, that will amount to the offence of causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration. Where the child is aged 13-15, the prosecution will need to prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief the child was 16 or over.

The prosecution will not be required to prove that there was an absence of consent or that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief that the sex was consensual.

The prosecution will be required to prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief that the child was 16 or older where the child was aged 13, 14 or 15.

These offences are triable only on indictment (i.e. in the Crown Court only) and carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Methodology and analysis

The true scale and nature of child sexual abuse is hard to estimate as it is a significantly under-reported and under-identified crime type, therefore the figures depicted below are considered to be an underestimate.

^{[footnote 57]} Further to this, the 2024 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 9.1% of adults experienced sexual abuse before the age of 18 years. This equates to an estimated 4.3 million people and includes both adult and child perpetrators^{[footnote 58]}.

In the year ending June 2025, there were 61,411 ^{[footnote 59]} very similar to the number recorded year ending June 2024 but up by over 200% since year to September 2013^{[footnote 60]}.Since 2014 there have been significant improvements in the accuracy of crime recording which has led to a discontinuity in several crime types including violence against the person, sexual offences and public order offences.

As set out above, it is already an offence for an adult to engage in penetrative sexual activity with a child under 16, or cause or incite a child under 16 to engage in such activity, under sections 9 and 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Ministry of Justice data indicates that in the year ending June 2024 there were 1,434 convictions of adults for having and causing or inciting penetrative activity with a child aged 13 to 15 years old^{[footnote 61]}.

Sex

Both girls and boys could be the victims of the behaviour targeted by the new offences, but we predict that the majority of victims will be girls. This is because it is generally accepted that there is a higher prevalence of contact child sexual abuse and exploitation committed against girls than boys: 78% of victims for police recorded child sexual abuse and exploitation offences^{[footnote 62]} were girls in 2024 (where data on sex was available)^{[footnote 63]}.

The 2024 Crime Survey England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 13.9% of women aged 18 years and over experienced sexual abuse as a child, compared with 4.1% of men. Prevalence of all types of sexual abuse was higher for women than men. For example, 4% of women reported experiencing rape or assault by penetration (including attempts) before the age of 18 years, compared with 0.9% of men^{[footnote 64]}.

Perpetrators are mostly male. ^{[footnote 65]}n police recorded crime data for child sexual abuse in calendar year 2024 and exploitation offences the perpetrator’s sex was recorded in 63% of records. Where sex was recorded, 82% of perpetrators were male.^{[footnote 66]} Ministry of Justice data in 2024 indicated 96% of individuals convicted of child sexual abuse offences were male, with 2% female and 2% unknown^{[footnote 67]}. Among those who experienced sexual abuse as a child, the perpetrators were most commonly male only (91.3%). ^{[footnote 68]}.

New sections 8B and 8C are based on the conduct and intent of the perpetrator and not on the perpetrator’s sex. However, it is reasonable to assume that the general trends in terms of victim and perpetrator profile that apply to child sex offences generally, and the existing offences which already capture this behaviour specifically, will also apply in relation to the new offences. We therefore believe that these offences will criminalise more males because men are more likely to perpetrate this behaviour, but benefit and protect more females who are protected through deterrent of a maximum penalty of life.

However, we do not consider that the provisions will amount to unlawful indirect discrimination; the behaviour is harmful regardless of the sex of the perpetrator or victim, and the measures, which apply to men and women equally, are an appropriate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting children from criminal behaviour.

We accept that section 8A can only be committed by a person with a penis. However, we do not accept that this amounts to direct discrimination as where a woman undertakes comparable behaviour with a part of their body, or an object, that behaviour will be captured by sections 8B or 8C and all offences carry the same maximum sentence.

Age

Sexual offending against children can occur at any point before the person turns 16. However, the 2024 CSEW found that sexual abuse most commonly began when victims were aged between 13 and 15 years (33.4% of victims), followed by those aged between 10 and 12 years (22.9%). Abuse starting at younger ages was less common; 1% of victims stated their abuse began between 0 and 3 years of age and 7.8% between 4 and 6 years of age. However, academic research on adult recollection of childhood memories showed that it is difficult to accurately recall experiences in early childhood^{[footnote 69]}.

Among those who experienced sexual abuse as a child, 40.1% said that the perpetrator was under the age of 18 years, while 69.8% said that the perpetrator was aged 18 years and over. These categories are not mutually exclusive, with some victims stating the abuse was carried out by both perpetrators under the age of 18 years and aged 18 years and over^{[footnote 70]}.

We have considered the likely impact of the new offences on those who share the protected characteristic of age. By definition these offences can only be committed by persons who are aged 18 or older, and they can only be committed against children under 16. We do not consider that this amounts to unlawful discrimination however; it is justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting children under the age of 16 from the significant risk of harm that is inherent in engaging in penetrative sexual activity with an adult. While such activity is also harmful when the perpetrator is under 18, the smaller age gap between the parties in such cases is more likely to capture genuinely consensual relationships between teenagers, and therefore the alternative offences which attract a lower maximum penalties, remain proportionate in those cases.

We accept that the new offences may particularly affect adults who are in consensual relationships with those who are under 16 but are “close-in-age”, for example an 18 or 19 old in a consensual relationship with someone aged 15. It is important to recall that sexual activity in such a scenario is already a serious criminal offence, but these individuals, if convicted of one of the new offences, will be subject to a maximum penalty of life rather than 14 years. Whether to bring charges in any individual case, and which offence to charge, will always be a decision for the independent CPS. Where, on the facts of the case, charges under the new offences are not considered appropriate, the offending behaviour will continue to fall within sections 9 or 10 of the 2003 Act and may be charged accordingly. The Government’s view is that this may include, for example, where cases meet the CPS’ test to prosecute and the parties are close in age with no evidence of grooming, coercion, manipulation or a power imbalance.

Baroness Casey also recommended in the National Audit “the consideration of a ‘Romeo and Juliet clause’ to prevent criminalising teenagers in relationships with each other.” We have committed to conduct a public consultation on close-in-age relationships.

Race

The 2024 CSEW found that those from a Mixed ethnic background and White adults were more likely to report having experienced child sexual abuse than those from other ethnic groups (14.7% and 9.8% respectively of respondents)^{[footnote 71]}. However, there may be barriers to reporting within certain ethnic groups, so this could be a reflection on reporting behaviour than prevalence. The CSA Centre (2021) found that there were both internal and external barriers to disclosure for ^{[footnote 72]}children^{[footnote 73]}.

^{[footnote 74]}, ^{[footnote 75]}.

Ministry of Justice data for convictions for child sex offences year ending 2024 indicates that, where recorded, 59% of offenders were White, which is an under representation (white population in England and Wales is 82%). However, in 28.6% of cases the offender’s ethnicity is unknown^{[footnote 76]}.

Due to the significant gaps in data available about the race of complainants and perpetrators in cases involving sexual offences against children under 16, It is not possible to draw any conclusions about whether or not the new offences will have a disproportionate impact on the grounds of race. However, the offences are based on the conduct and intent of the perpetrator, not the race of the perpetrator or complainant and will be applied to all people regardless of race.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of the new offences on the other protected characteristics of disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, or sexual orientation. This is due to the lack of data for the cohorts of perpetrators and victims likely to be affected.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

As explained above, the offence in section 8A can only be committed by those with a penis However, this does not amount to less favourable treatment on the grounds of sex, because women who engage in comparable conduct with a part of their body, or an object, their behaviour will be captured by sections 8B or 8C instead. As a result, this measure does not involve direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Assessment because it does not treat people less favourably due to their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not, and it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Our initial assessment is that these changes are not indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Assessment as explained below.

We have considered that men are more likely to be the perpetrators of this conduct and will therefore be more likely to be impacted by the new offences. However, engaging in sexual activity with a child under 16 is already a criminal offence, and the higher maximum penalty attached to the new offences reflects the significant risk of harm to a child under 16 from engaging in penetrative sexual activity with an adult. We therefore consider that the measure is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting children.

Discrimination arising from disability and duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the new offences will result in any discrimination in relation to disability. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators and victims with disabilities.

Harassment and victimisation

We do not consider that the new offences will give rise to harassment or victimisation within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

Advancing equality of opportunity

We do not believe that these measures specifically advance the equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristics and persons who do not share, but the creation of these offences aims to protect people from this harmful behaviour and should have a positive impact on them.

Fostering good relations

The requirement to foster good relations involves seeking to reduce prejudice and increase understanding between those who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not. We do not consider that these new offences will have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Sharing a semen-defaced image without consent

Introduction

Semen-defaced images involve a photograph or film of a victim, usually a woman, with semen or something that appears to be semen on or next to the image, or a photograph or film which depicts such an image. AI can also be used to make it look like semen has been deposited on the image.

The behaviour has developed on public and private online social forums where people post and request these images. The victim is usually not aware of the image, however, it is usually designed to degrade and humiliate the person in the picture.

Depending on the circumstances, some criminal offences may already apply, for example harassment, communications offences, or intimate image offences if the victim is shown in an intimate state e.g. if the victim has, or AI has been used to suggest that the victim has, semen on their body within the image. However, these offences would not apply in all scenarios, particularly those where there was no intention for the victim to see the image, or where the victim is not in an “intimate state”.

Policy summary

The new offence will criminalise sharing a semen-defaced image without consent or reasonable belief in consent.

Like intimate image abuse, the nature of offending around semen-defaced images means that victims and prosecutors may be unaware an image has been shared until after the standard time limit for prosecution of summary only offences (6 months) has passed. Accordingly, this offence will have an extended time limit for prosecution to a period that is both within three years of the commission of the offence and within six months of the date when the prosecutor had sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Methodology and data analysis

The behaviour of sharing semen-defaced images developed on public and private online social forums where people post and request these images. There is no official statistical data to inform our understanding of its prevalence, particularly in England and Wales.

When the Law Commission consulted on proposals for intimate image offences in their 2022 report, consultees responded highlighting the issue of semen-defaced images (referred to as “semen images” in the report), indicating their prevalence and the impact on women.

A VICE article from October 2022 described tens of websites, forums and private online spaces dedicated to this type of behaviour. They described the main website, based in the United States, as receiving 4.8 million visits a month. This website has since been taken down and has not been replaced, however, the behaviour persists elsewhere online.

Age

Within this process we have considered the impact the creation of this offence may have on young people. We do not have any concrete data on whether the victims or perpetrators of this type of behaviour or adults or children. However, we are alive to concerns about the impact of this type of online image-based abuse on children, both as perpetrators and victims, and the need to protect them from the risk of discriminating against them through our legislation. The youth justice system is designed to mitigate the risks associated with children engaging with the criminal justice system.

Sex

The offences are based on the conduct and intent of the perpetrator and not on sex (or any other protected characteristic). However, evidence indicates that sharing semen-defaced images is most likely to be perpetrated by men against women. It is therefore likely that new offences will indirectly have a greater positive impact on women who are more likely than men to be victims of this behaviour.

Whilst men are more likely to be the perpetrators of these new offences and will therefore be indirectly impacted to a greater degree, we do not consider that the provisions will amount to unlawful indirect discrimination. This behaviour is harmful regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or victim. The offences themselves are similarly sex neutral, and we therefore consider the measures, applying equally to male and female perpetrators are a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting victims from criminal behaviour.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of this policy on the other protected characteristics of race, sexual orientation, disability, gender reassignment, marriage, and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief. This is due to the lack of data for the cohort of defendants and potential victims likely to be affected.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a policy would result in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. The offences will apply to all perpetrators and victims, regardless of their protected characteristics. As a result, this measure does not involve direct discrimination within the meaning of the EA because it does not treat people less favourably due to their protected characteristics.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not. Our initial assessment is that these changes are not indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the EA as explained below.

Both victims and perpetrators of the behaviour targeted by the offences could be male or female, but we predict that the majority of victims will be female and the majority of perpetrators will be male.

However, we do not consider that the provisions will amount to unlawful indirect discrimination. This behaviour is harmful regardless of the sex of the perpetrator or victim. Overall, these measures are considered to be a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting victims from this behaviour.

Within this process we have considered the impact the creation of this offence may have on young people. We do not have any concrete data on whether the victims or perpetrators of this type of behaviour are adults or children. However, we are alive to concerns about the impact of this type of online image-based abuse on children, both as perpetrators and victims, and the need to protect them from the risk of discriminating against them through our legislation. The youth justice system is designed to mitigate the risks associated with children engaging with the criminal justice system.

Disability and the duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination in relation to disability for perpetrators and victims. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators and victims with disabilities.

Advancing equality of opportunity

We do not believe that these measures specifically advance the equality of opportunity for people with protected characteristics, but the creation of these offences aims to protect people from this harmful behaviour and should have a positive impact on them.

Fostering good relations

We do not consider that these proposals would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Pornography measures: portrayals of strangulation or suffocation, sex between relatives and sexual activity with a child under 16

Introduction

Recognising the harms that some forms of pornography can have in shaping behaviours offline, we are criminalising the possession and publication of particularly egregious content. Baroness Bertin’s Independent Pornography Review, published February 2025, identified certain harmful pornography that can shape and influence how we conduct ourselves in sexual relationships, such as pornography depicting strangulation, or could contribute to an interest in behaviour that would otherwise be illegal in real life, such as pornography depicting incest or child sexual abuse.

To this end, the Crime and Policing Act contains a number of measures to tackle the types of harmful pornography identified.

These measures are also part of the preventative pillar of the Government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

Policy summary

The new offences criminalise the possession and publication of:

• Pornographic images depicting strangulation and suffocation;

• Pornographic images depicting sex between persons who are related as certain family members (so-called “incest porn”), including certain step and foster relatives where one person is, or is pretending to be, under 18;

• Pornographic images depicting sexual activity, where at least one person is, or is pretending to be, under 16 (so-called “adults roleplaying as children”).

Methodology and data analysis

The most relevant and applicable existing criminal offences to these measures are:

• Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which criminalises the possession of extreme pornography (possession of extreme porn offence).

• Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 which criminalises the publication of obscene articles (publication of obscene articles offence).

Although data exists on convictions under the publication of obscene articles offence, this offence applies to a wide range of articles, not just those that are pornographic, so it is difficult to assess the relevance of the convictions. Therefore, the most relevant offence for these purposes is the possession of extreme porn offence.

For the year ending December 2025 there were 97 cases proceeded against under the possession of extreme porn offence.

There were 106 convictions under the possession of extreme porn offence1 for the year ending December 2025, with 6 convictions for extreme pornographic images that depicted an act which threatens a person’s life; this is relevant to the new offence that criminalises depictions of strangulation and suffocation in pornography, as some of that content may currently be captured under the life-threatening limb of the possession of extreme porn offence (if judged as serious enough to be life-threatening).2

Age

Of the 106 convictions for the possession of extreme pornography offence in the year ending December 2025, in 18 cases the offender was under 30; 35 were aged 30-39; 25 were 40-49; 10 were 50-59; 16 were 60-69; and 3 were 70 and over. 3

This shows that persons of all ages are convicted of the possession of extreme pornography offence, with 50% under 40 and 50% in the older age brackets.

However, the data on pornography usage available for those living in Great Britain differs.4 A poll of just over 4,000 adults showed that younger people are generally more likely to watch pornography (48% of those aged under 30, compared to 17% of those 60+).

Age as an indicator of usage of pornography becomes a little more complex when looked at in conjunction with sex. Although young women are more likely to watch content compared to older women, the number of young women watching pornography is still considerably less than men across all age groups.

Although from the conviction rate for extreme pornography it is clear that perpetrators are of all ages; when specific types of pornographic content are illegal to possess or publish (which includes sharing by any means), men under 30 may be impacted as the most regular users of pornography. It is, however, important to note that we do not have evidence on the prevalence of watching the specific types of harmful pornography being criminalised, namely pornography depicting strangulation or suffocation, sex between relatives or sexual activity with a child under 16.

It is also relevant to our considerations that there is evidence to suggest that some pornography is mimicking, and potentially normalising, child sexual abuse, especially in the family environment where child sexual abuse is often perpetrated.5 New measures aimed at stopping the proliferation of pornography depicting illegal sexual conduct, such as incest or child sexual abuse, could therefore prevent the normalisation of harmful attitudes in relation to sexual activity with children.

In criminalising possession and publication of pornographic content, we recognise the risks of disproportionately criminalising young people who explore and engage in different types of pornography as a form of sexual expression and to explore their own sexuality at a young age. However, we know that the youth justice system is designed to mitigate the risks associated with children engaging with the criminal justice system, and given this Government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, we consider these offences should apply regardless of age.

Race

None of the measures in the Crime and Policing Act have a specific equalities effect on race, and it has not been possible to locate any existing evidence on the prevalence of persons within different racial groups viewing the specific types of pornography that have been criminalised, or any data on the race of persons convicted of the possession of extreme pornography offence.

There is evidence to suggest that racism exists in depictions of aggression within pornography.6 Some examination of pornographic websites found Black individuals disproportionately featured in aggressive pornography compared to White individuals, with more Black women portrayed as the target of aggression and content involving Black couples featuring the highest levels of aggression in comparison to other racial pairings.7

Other research found that pornographic content featuring Asian and Latina women was more likely to depict aggression, compared to Black and White women.8

Because aggression in pornography often manifests in acts of strangulation (colloquially known as ‘choking’), the criminalisation of pornographic content which depicts strangulation or suffocation could limit the normalisation of this type of violence against minority groups already disproportionately targeted by aggression within pornography.

Sex

Of the 106 convictions for possession of extreme pornography in the year ending December 2025, 99 were male, 5 female and 2 unknown; demonstrating a large majority of male perpetrators.9

Data on pornography usage available for those living in Great Britain supports this. Tracking of 10,000 adult users’ internet usage found that men comprise 72% of the audience using pornographic content services in the UK, with male visitors spending an average of one hour 44 minutes per month on these sites, compared to one hour for female visitors10.

Similarly, 76% of men and 53% of women responding to a poll said they have watched pornography. 36% of men who responded watch it at least once a week compared to only 4% of women. In fact, 13% of men stated that they watched it daily, whereas only 15% of women stated that they watched porn with any degree of frequency at all11.

Moreover, although young people on the whole are more likely to watch pornography compared to older people, men under 30 are far more likely to use it over women under 30 (62% vs 35%). The same applies for people over 60 whereby 34% of men say they watch pornography compared to just 2% of women in the same age bracket12.

It is evident from data on convictions of the possession of extreme pornography offence, and information on pornography usage, that new offences criminalising the possession and publication of certain types of pornographic content will more likely impact men.

In relation to the depictions in pornography that these offences target; the Independent Review of Pornography highlighted international research showing that strangulation during sex is typically committed on women, transgender or non-binary people, although notes that this research is not conclusive. Within a UK context, 71% of surveyed men aged 18 to 39 had slapped, choked, gagged, or spat on their partner during consensual sex15. This is relevant to the new measure criminalising the possession and publication of strangulation or suffocation pornography which could cover behaviours such as ‘choking’ and ‘gagging’ within those terms.

In relation to incest-themed pornography, the Independent Review of Pornography states that the most common form of sexually violent pornographic content on mainstream platforms was family sexual activity. Written evidence suggests that family relationships are often depicted as an older male relative with a younger female relative; referencing titles like “’real dad loves his very young daughter/virgin stepdaughter’.13

The same dynamic is predominately used in depictions of adults roleplaying as children in pornography, whereby an older male character will be engaging in sexual activity with a woman pretending to be a very-young / pubescent-looking girl.14

Therefore, the criminalisation of harmful pornographic content which depicts strangulation or illegal sexual conduct, such as incest or child sexual abuse, could help to limit the normalisation of this conduct against women who are predominately the recipients of this behaviour in pornography.

Sexual orientation

None of the measures in the Crime and Policing Act have a specific equalities effect on sexual orientation, and it has not been possible to locate any existing evidence on the prevalence of persons of different sexual orientation viewing the specific types of pornography that have been criminalised, or any data on the sexual orientation of persons convicted of the possession of extreme pornography offence.

Analysis of pornography more generally, however, has identified frequent aggression in both heterosexual and homosexual material. This is relevant to the new measure criminalising the possession and publication of strangulation or suffocation pornography as this is often how acts of aggression manifest in pornography.

More specifically, a study of gay (male same-sex) pornography found that sexual aggression occurred in 31% of scenes16. Content analysis of heterosexual (male-female) pornography found that 45% of Pornhub scenes contained sexual aggression of some form. More specifically, 35% of X Videos scenes included at least one act of physical aggression, with “choking” ranking one of the five most common forms of aggression observed. This aggression was committed against women in 97% of the scenes and perpetrated by men against women in 76% of the scenes17. It is therefore evident that acts of aggression, such as strangulation, occurs in both homosexual and heterosexual pornography.

Incest-themed pornography has become more popular in recent years and is often depicted within heterosexual relationships between fathers/daughters, mothers/sons or stepbrothers and stepsisters.18 There is no specific research available on the prevalence of incest-themed homosexual pornography.

Pornography relating to adults roleplaying as children is difficult to consistently identify, however we know that categories of ‘teen’ and schoolgirl’ pornography are popular and predominantly depicts women portrayed as young girls in heterosexual pornography.19 There is no specific research available on the prevalence of this type of content in homosexual pornography.

From the data available therefore, it could be viewed that the criminalisation of pornographic content which depicts strangulation or suffocation could limit the normalisation of this type of violence in all sexual relationships. In relation to the depictions of illegal sexual conduct, such as incest or child sexual abuse, it could limit the normalisation of these harmful attitudes within heterosexual relationships.

Other protected characteristics

We are currently not able to identify the likely impacts of these measures on the other protected characteristics of Disability, Gender Reassignment, Religion or Belief, Pregnancy and Maternity or Marriage and Civil Partnership and it has not been possible to locate any existing evidence on the prevalence of these individuals viewing the specific types of pornography that have been criminalised in the Crime and Policing Act. We also do not have data on these protected characteristic groups within conviction data for possession of extreme pornography.

It has also not been possible to ascertain research on how criminalising the types of pornography aforementioned could positively or negatively impact those individuals through changing of societal attitudes.

Equality impact

Direct discrimination

The new offences will apply in the same way to all perpetrators, regardless of their protected characteristics. The offences will therefore not result in people being treated less favourably due to their protected characteristics and we do not consider they are directly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

Indirect discrimination

Whilst the new offences will apply to all perpetrators, the evidence suggests that men are much more likely to be convicted of the existing possession of extreme porn offence and men and young people are more likely to use pornography. Therefore, we consider that men, and potentially young people, are more likely to be the perpetrators of the new offences and are consequently more likely to be particularly disadvantaged through convictions under the new offences.

However, we do not consider that the new offences will amount to unlawful indirect discrimination. The new offences target harmful pornography that can shape and influence how persons conduct themselves in sexual relationships, such as pornography depicting strangulation, or could contribute to an interest in behaviour that would be illegal in real life, such as pornography depicting incest or child sexual abuse. The possession and publication of these pornographic images is harmful regardless of the characteristics of the perpetrator. We therefore consider that the new offences are a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of preventing the normalisation of such potentially harmful or illegal behaviour

As outlined in the introduction, these measures form part of the preventative pillar of this Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. As such, the criminalisation of harmful pornographic depictions of strangulation or illegal sexual conduct could prevent the further normalisation of sexual violence, abuse and harmful attitudes towards women and girls.

Discrimination arising from disability and duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the new offences will result in any unlawful discrimination arising from disability. We will continue to make reasonable adjustments for perpetrators with disabilities.

Harassment and victimisation

Consideration was given to this objective, and we do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation as a result of these measures.

Advancing equality of opportunity

These offences relate to the criminalisation of the possession or publication of certain types of harmful pornography and therefore we do not consider that they specifically advance the equality of opportunity for any particular groups. However, the creation of these offences aims to protect people from the types of harmful and illegal behaviour depicted in pornography by preventing its normalisation in real-life and should therefore have a positive impact on them.

Fostering good relations

Consideration was given to this objective, and we do not consider that these offences would have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective.

Data preservation notices

Introduction

Section 247 requires coroners in England and Wales to notify OFCOM of all child deaths (subject to specified exemptions) in order to secure the retention by providers of internet services of information about the use of a service by that child, and makes related changes to the data preservation notice provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 (“the 2023 Act”).

Policy summary

Section 247 creates a new section 31A in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which requires coroners in England and Wales to notify Ofcom within 5 days of becoming aware of the death of a child aged between 5 and 17. The requirement does not apply if it is clear that a death does not require investigation by the coroner or that the child’s online activity was not relevant to the circumstances of their death. This reflects the policy assumption that online activity will only be relevant in a subset of child deaths, but that its relevance may not always be clear at the outset of an investigation. Accordingly, the exemption is intentionally narrow and is likely only to extend to deaths which are clearly the natural conclusion of a terminal illness, or which result from an accident (for example, a road traffic accident) where it is clear there was no premeditation or intent.

The coroner’s notification to Ofcom will trigger the issue of a data preservation notice under section 101 of the 2023 Act which requires relevant service providers to preserve data relating to the child’s use of the service. This ensures that potentially relevant information is retained while its evidential value is assessed, supporting a policy approach of preserving data by default unless it is clearly unnecessary. This, in turn, enables Ofcom to require provision of that information from service providers when requested by a coroner, so that it can then prepare a report in the context of the investigation into the child’s death.

Section 247 also amends section 102 of the 2023 Act to reduce the period for which data is preserved from twelve months to six months. This remains extendable where required and, where it is not yet clear whether preserved information may be required as evidence in a coroner’s investigation, the default position is to extend the retention period. It also amends section 101 of the 2023 Act to enable regulations describing the types of services that will automatically receive a data preservation notice to refer to research that is updated from time to time.

The main practical effect of the new duty is to increase the frequency, speed and consistency with which potentially relevant information is preserved in cases involving the death of a child. This will benefit bereaved families by improving the availability of evidence for the coroner’s investigation and, in turn, support more informed findings and opportunities for learning.

These changes apply only in England and Wales; the discretionary framework for data preservation under section 101 of the 2023 Act continues to apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The new notification duty does not remove the coroner’s ability, under the existing section 101 framework, to identify particular services to receive a preservation request or to request a data preservation notice at any stage of an investigation where further services are identified as potentially relevant.

Evidence and analysis

The changes made by section 247 respond to concerns that online evidence may be deleted as a result of providers’ routine retention protocols if preservation is not requested promptly. The policy objective of the changes made by section 247 is therefore to ensure that, in cases within scope, potentially relevant information is preserved at the earliest possible stage through a more consistent default process, while maintaining a framework that is targeted and proportionate.

The principal groups affected by the measure are:

• children aged 5 to 17 whose deaths are reported to the coroner

• bereaved families who may benefit from investigation outcomes associated with the improved availability of relevant evidence

• third parties, particularly other children with whom the deceased was in online contact, whose data may be incidentally preserved where it forms part of the child’s online interactions.

The measure does not change the scope of the scheme set out under the 2023 Act, which is age limited and applies only where the deceased child was, to the best of the coroner’s knowledge, aged between 5 and 17. The lower age threshold reflects the policy view that children below the age of 5 are very unlikely to have an independent online presence or online accounts. The upper age limit aligns with the definition of “child” in the 2023 Act.

The available evidence base is imperfect because no single published dataset aligns exactly with the cohort of children aged 5 to 17. Available evidence suggests that, within this cohort, many deaths arise from medical conditions, while a smaller but significant proportion involve suicide, self-inflicted harm, trauma, abuse, neglect, or unexplained circumstances.[^77]

We do not hold data on the protected characteristics of the specific cohort of children whose deaths may engage this provision, nor on the likely distribution of data preservation requests by protected characteristic (although these two measures should be closely aligned in any event).

The provision may also affect living third parties whose data is incidentally preserved. We anticipate that the distribution of any impact by protected characteristic will reflect distribution in the general population. Any impact (on the privacy rights of those individuals) is mitigated by the reduction of the initial retention period from twelve months to six months.

Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, etc.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a policy results in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. This measure is expressly limited to cases involving the death of a child aged between 5 and 17.

This measure does not alter the scope of the data preservation scheme for child deaths set out in the Online Safety Act 2023; it introduces a new duty on coroners to notify such deaths to Ofcom within a specified timeframe. Any difference in treatment on the basis of age arises from the underlying scheme and has the same objective justification, namely to ensure that the framework is appropriately targeted and proportionate to a cohort more likely to have an independent online presence and to be exposed to online harms.

The measure does not treat individuals less favourably because of any other protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs where a policy applies in the same way to all within scope but may place people who share a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared with those who do not.

We do not hold data enabling us to assess quantitatively whether the bereaved families of children whose deaths engage this provision, or the third parties whose data may be incidentally preserved, are disproportionately drawn from particular protected groups. However, we have considered those possible effects qualitatively.

We anticipate that the distribution of any impact by protected characteristic will reflect distribution in the general population. However, to the extent that bereaved families from particular protected groups are disproportionately represented among cases in scope, the impact of the measure is likely to be beneficial rather than adverse, because the change introduced by this provision is intended to improve the likelihood that potentially relevant online evidence is preserved, thereby supporting coroners to carry out their statutory functions effectively, helping families obtain answers about the circumstances of their child’s death, and potentially contributing to learning.

To the extent that living third parties from particular protected groups are disproportionately represented among those whose data may be incidentally preserved, we consider that impact to be limited and proportionate. The measure concerns preservation only, not routine access to or disclosure of that information; any subsequent access must take place through existing lawful routes and safeguards. In addition, the impact is mitigated by the reduction of the initial preservation period from twelve months to six months, subject to extension only where necessary.

In light of those factors, and in the absence of evidence of a particular disadvantage amounting to unlawful indirect discrimination, we assess that the measure does not give rise to any unlawful indirect discrimination.

Discrimination arising from disability and duty to make reasonable adjustments

We do not consider that the proposed changes will result in any unlawful discrimination arising from disability.

Harassment and victimisation

We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 arising from this measure.

Advancing equality of opportunity

We do not consider that this measure is primarily directed at advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Its purpose is to improve the consistency and timeliness of preservation of potential evidence in coronial investigations. However, to the extent that bereaved families from particular protected groups are represented among cases in scope, the measure may have an indirect benefit by supporting coroners to establish the circumstances of a child’s death.

Fostering good relations

Fostering good relations seeks to reduce prejudice and increase understanding between different groups of people with protected characteristics. We do not consider that these measures would have any impact on the achievement of this objective.

1. Intimate Image Abuse: A consultation paper (2021) Law Commission Consultation Paper No 253, para 2.75. ↩

2. Caitlin Webb and Sally Weale, “]More than 500 child victims of ‘revenge porn’ in England and Wales last year](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/09/more-than-500-child-victims-of-revenge-porn-in-england-and-wales-last-year)” (9 October 2020) The Guardian, ↩

3. Peter Sherlock, “Revenge pornography victims as young as 11, investigation finds” (27 April 2016) BBC News. ↩

4. Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, “End Revenge Porn: A Campaign of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative” ↩

5. Intimate Image Abuse: A consultation paper (2021) Law Commission Consultation Paper No 253, para 5.103. ↩

6. Reform of the Communications Offences - Law Commission ↩

7. Prevalence of non-suicidal self-harm and service contact in England, 2000-14: repeated cross-sectional surveys of the general population - PubMed ↩

8. Context | Self-harm: assessment, management and preventing recurrence | Guidance | NICE ↩

9. Exploring gender differences in risk factors for self-harm in adolescents using data from the Millennium Cohort Study - ScienceDirect ↩

10. ? ↩

11. ? ↩

12. ? ↩

13. Women and the Criminal Justice System 2021 - GOV.UK ↩

14. Abel, Mittelman and Becker in Clinical Criminology: the assessment and treatment of criminal behaviour: Ben-Aron et al, Toronto ↩

15. Modernising Communications Offences: A final report (2021) ↩

16. Public Order Offences incorporating the Charging Standard | The Crown Prosecution Service ↩

17. Modernising Communications Offences: A final report (2021) Law Commission Report No 399 ↩

18. An evidence review of the connections between sexual exposure and contact sexual offending (2024) College of Policing Report Dr Fiona Vera-Gray, Professor Clare McGlynn ↩

19. Males and Females charged with indecent exposure in London from 2010 to 2020 | Metropolitan Police ↩

20. Spiking - House of Commons Library ↩

21. Police target night-time economy to tackle spiking ↩

22. Spiking: factsheet - GOV.UK ↩

23. Spiking: factsheet - GOV.UK ↩

24. Report: Understanding and tackling spiking (accessible) - GOV.UK ↩

25. committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/42659/pdf/ ↩

26. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/42627/pdf/ ↩

27. e86d9f72-dc8d-46f3-b3bf-e102911c8532.pdf ↩

28. Child Abduction Act 1984 ↩

29. The Child Abduction (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 ↩

30. Global Report – Statistical study of applications made in 2021 under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention ↩

31. Simplification of Criminal Law: Kidnapping and Related Offences ↩

32. Outcomes by Offence data tool: December 2024 ↩

33. These figures relate to initial disposals at courts. Appeals are not included. Figures also relate to cases where there was a prosecution or conviction for at least one offence under Article 3 of the Child Abduction (NI) Order 1985 ↩

34. Global Report – Statistical study of applications made in 2021 under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention ↩

35. Outcomes by Offence data tool: December 2024 ↩

36. Over 2020 to 2024 there have been 7 prosecutions for offences under Article 3 of the Child Abduction (NI) Order, resulting in 6 convictions. These figures relate to initial disposals at courts. Appeals are not included. Figures also relate to cases where there was a prosecution or conviction for at least one offence under Article 3 of the Child Abduction (NI) Order 1985 ↩

37. Global Report – Statistical study of applications made in 2021 under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention ↩

38. Offender management statistics quarterly - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) The annual 2022 probation tables are used as they include a wider range of data on protected characteristics than more recent quarterly tables. ↩

39. Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly: December 2022 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) The Outcomes by Offence data tool is used for juvenile offenders as they provide a wider range of characteristics. ↩

40. 2021 Census data, Age groups - GOV.UK Ethnicity facts and figures ↩

41. HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report 2023 to 2024 ↩

42. The Northern Ireland prison population 2023-24 ↩

43. As of 30 September 2024 ↩

44. HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report 2023 to 2024 ↩

45. As of 30 September 2024 ↩

46. CHowdleinvitationltr-160118 ↩

47. Ethnic group, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics ↩

48. brc-crime-survey-report-media-2024.pdf ↩

49. brc-crime-survey-report-media-2024.pdf ↩

50. ONS, January 2020, Child sexual abuse in England and Wales: year ending March 2019 ↩

51. ONS, January 2020, Child sexual abuse in England and Wales: year ending March 2019 ↩

52. ONS, March 2020, Child abuse in England and Wales: March 2020 ↩

53. IICSA, March 2019, Child sexual abuse in residential schools - a literature review ↩

54. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, May 2022, Global estimates of violence against children with disabilities: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis ↩

55. Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK ↩

56. National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse - GOV.UK ↩

57. CSA Centre (2021). The scale and nature of child sexual abuse: Review of evidence. Available at: CSA Centre Scale and Nature Report ↩

58. CSEW (2025). Abuse during childhood in England and Wales: March 2024. Available at: CSEW ADC 2024 ↩

59. Home Office (2026). Police recorded crime and outcomes open data tables. Available at: Police recorded crime open data tables, Year ending March 2013 onwards ↩

60. Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly’ (Year ending June 2024: Outcomes by Offence data tool) Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly: June 2024 - GOV.UK ↩

61. The VKPP (2025) 2024 National Analysis of Police-Recorded CSAE crimes report defines CSAE offences in Appendix A: Appendix-A_CSAE-offence-categories-2024-report.pdf ↩

62. VKPP (2025) 2024 National Analysis of Police-Recorded CSAE crimes report. Available at: VKPP Totality Year 3 Report January 2024 to December 2024. ↩

63. CSEW (2025). Abuse during childhood in England and Wales: March 2024. Available at: CSEW ADC 2024 ↩

64. National Police Chief’s Council, ‘2024 National Analysis of Police-Recorded CSAE crimes report’ National Analysis of Police-Recorded Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Crimes Report 2024 | Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme ↩

65. ? ↩

66. Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly’ (Year ending June 2024: Outcomes by Offence data tool) Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly: June 2024 - GOV.UK ↩

67. CSEW (year ending March 2024) Abuse during childhood: Abuse during childhood in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics ↩

68. CSEW (2025). Abuse during childhood in England and Wales: March 2024. Available at: CSEW ADC 2024 ↩

69. Crime Survey for England and Wales (year ending March 2024) Abuse during childhood: Abuse during childhood in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics ↩

70. CSEW (2025). Abuse during childhood in England and Wales: March 2024. Available at: CSEW ADC 2024 ↩

71. ? ↩

72. CSA Centre (2021) – Improving responses to the sexual abuse of Black, Asian and minority ethnic children ↩

73. CSAE definition for police recorded crime includes position of trust offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the victim is under 18 rather than under 16 Appendix-A_CSAE-offence-categories-2024-report.pdf ↩

74. National Police Chief’s Council, ‘2024 National Analysis of Police-Recorded CSAE crimes report’ National Analysis of Police-Recorded Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Crimes Report 2024 | Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme ↩

75. Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly’ (Year ending June 2024: Outcomes by Offence data tool) Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly: June 2024 - GOV.UK ↩

76. Child death data release 2025 | National Child Mortality Database ↩