Policy paper

Crime and Policing Act 2026: child sexual abuse civil measure factsheet

Updated 29 September 2026

What are we going to do?

We are pursuing two measures which will implement recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) for the civil justice system:

• removing the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in respect of their abuse;

• reversing the burden of proof meaning it will be for the defendant (rather than the claimant as at present) to establish that it is not possible for a fair hearing to take place, while ensuring the express protection of the right of the defendant to a fair trial.

How are we going to do it?

These reforms require amendments to be made to primary legislation. The removal of time limits and reversing the burden of proof in fair trial challenges for child sex abuse claims requires the Limitation Act 1980 to be amended.

The 1980 Act currently provides that for any personal injury claim there is a time limit of three years to make a claim (or by the age of 21 if the abuse happened when the victim was under 18), and an application is required to get a court order to proceed if that time has expired. In addition, when an out of time application is made, the onus is currently on the claimant to satisfy the court that a fair trial can proceed, given the time that has elapsed.

This reform will abolish the time limits just for child sexual abuse claims, recognising that these claims are nearly always brought some time after the incidents that gave rise to the claim and responding to a specific recommendation of the IICSA Inquiry.

The Inquiry also recommended a reversal of the burden of proof when a challenge is made as to whether a fair trial can take place. We will place the onus on defendants to satisfy a court that a fair trial will not be possible, rather than (as at present) the burden falling on a claimant to show that it would be possible. This was another specific IICSA recommendation that reflected the emotional and practical difficulties the process involved for claimants which had the effect of deterring them from seeking access to justice.

Background

Time limits for child sexual abuse claims

Currently, any claim seeking damages for personal injury, such as child sexual abuse claims, falls within the scope of section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 and is therefore subject to a three-year time limit from the date on which the cause of action accrued or the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injured. Cases can still be brought outside the time limits, but they require the permission of the court to proceed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, and the claimant (who in child sexual abuse cases is the alleged victim) must satisfy the court that the defendant can receive a fair trial.

For victims and survivors of non-recent child sexual abuse, limitation periods are one of the most challenging legal issues they face. The IICSA heard evidence that many victims of child sexual abuse feel ashamed, guilty, distrustful and angry and try to forget or block out the memories of their abuse. As a result, very few victims and survivors of child sexual abuse bring their claims before the expiration of the three-year limitation period.

This means that the starting point is that most claimants in this cohort of cases are deemed to be too late and must apply to the court to allow them to proceed, bearing the burden of proving why the claim should be allowed to proceed. Having to apply to the court to be allowed to proceed and having to justify any delay in bringing the claims adds a further and unnecessary burden to what is already a difficult process for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.

The IICSA heard evidence that this requirement to seek permission from the court to proceed with a claim outside the limitation period, and to place the burden on claimants to persuade the court to disapply the time limit, unfairly operates as a barrier to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse bringing civil claims.

This was reinforced by responses to the Government’s consultation on this reform, which ran from 15 May to 10 July 2024 and showed widespread support for implementing the IICSA recommendation, including from victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.

Given the particularly abhorrent nature of child sexual abuse, the Government believes there are compelling reasons for treating child sexual abuse cases as a distinct cohort of cases for which a special limitation regime is justified. This reform therefore amends the Limitation Act 1980 to remove the limitation period for child sexual abuse related personal injury claims in civil courts in England and Wales brought by victims and survivors in respect of their abuse.

Reversal of the burden of proof

Considering the distinctive nature of civil cases involving child sexual abuse and the imperative for a tailored approach, the legislative changes stipulate that defendants bear the burden of demonstrating the impossibility of a fair trial. Thus, responsibility will no longer fall upon the claimants (victims/survivors) to prove the fairness of proceeding with the trial. The Limitation Act 1980 will therefore be amended to say that where a question arises as to whether a fair trial is possible in respect of civil child sexual abuse cases, it will be for the defendant to establish that a fair trial is impossible.

We consider that this is one of the exceptional categories of case in which reversing the burden of proof on fair trial challenges is justified, although there are various examples in civil litigation and legislation where the burden of proof falls on defendants rather than claimants.

As recommended by the IICSA, we will also ensure there is specific protection of the right to a fair trial for defendants.

Key statistics

Measuring the scale and nature of child sexual abuse is 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, there is no data available to represent the full scale of the issue. We therefore do not know how many people are currently experiencing, or have experienced, child sexual abuse or how many potential victims and survivors may be impacted by these changes.

Frequently asked questions

Why did the Government not immediately implement the IICSA recommendation to remove the time limit in child sexual abuse cases?

It was a decision of the previous Government to publish a consultation paper rather than to legislate immediately.

This consultation paper explored options on how the existing judicial guidance in child sexual abuse cases could be strengthened, as well as setting out options for the reform of limitation law in child sexual abuse cases.

Following the election, and change of government, this Government moved swiftly to accept the IICSA recommendations. We are now moving at pace to implement these changes through the Crime and Policing Act.

What did this consultation show?

The consultation responses showed strong overall support for the IICSA proposals, which the government have accepted and are now proposing to implement.

On the headline question of whether the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims should be removed for claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, a substantial majority of respondents were in favour.

There was also support from the majority of consultation respondents for the burden of proof in child sexual abuse cases to be reversed.

What is the Government`s response to the consultation?

This Government is determined that the voice of victims and survivors will be heard loud and clear and, in line with the support shown through the consultation exercise, the IICSA recommendations on this topic will be implemented in full.

Why should child sexual abuse claims be singled out for removal of the time limit?

On why child sexual abuse claims should be singled out (compared to say physical abuse, mental abuse or other types of abuse), there were specific concerns, considered at length by the Independent Inquiry, regarding the special nature of child sexual abuse cases.

Unlike other forms of abuse there can be a considerable delay in victims and survivors of child sexual abuse coming to terms with their abuse and attempting to bring claims to court. Invariably these claims then hit the limitation barrier as they are almost always brought outside the three-year time limit.

Why not copy the legislation in Scotland on this topic?

Child sexual abuse in England and Wales has been thoroughly examined, over a number of years, by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, herself a former Chief Social Work Inspector to the Scottish Government.

The Inquiry did not recommend that the Scottish legislation should be copied.

Rather the inquiry recognised the particularly abhorrent nature of child sexual abuse and recommended having a special limitation regime for these claims.

Following the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry we are not proposing that removal of time limits is extended to non-sexual abuse claims (as in the Scottish legislation).

Will these changes impact defendants’ rights under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights?

We are satisfied that these proposals strike a proportionate balance between the interests of defendants and the interests of the victims of child sexual abuse.

What safeguards will be available to defendants?

Courts are bound by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with Convention rights under the ECHR. In addition, as recommended by IICSA, we will legislate to ensure the express protection of the right to a fair trial, and defendants will still be able to apply to the court to argue that a fair trial will not be possible (for example due to the passage of time, loss of evidence etc).

Are there precedents for reversing the burden of proof?

The normal burden of proof in civil cases is on claimants to set out their case, and if limitation is raised as a defence, the onus is usually on claimants to satisfy the court that a fair trial can take place.

However, there are various precedents and examples of other civil cases where the burden of proof is reversed, with examples being the Equality Act 2010, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

As a safeguard, IICSA recommended, and the Government has agreed, to include express protection of the right to a fair trial specifically to ensure that the rights of defendants are protected. This will be in addition to the existing obligation under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for Courts to act compatibly with Convention rights under the ECHR.

Are there precedents for amendments to the Limitation Act? There are other areas of civil litigation in which amendments have been made to the Limitation Act 1980 to vary time limits for specific types of case. For example,

• The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021,

• The Building Safety Act 2022,

• The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018,

• The Consumer Protection Act 1987.

What is meant by child sexual abuse?

Child sexual abuse can take many different forms and we do not propose setting out a detailed definition of “child sexual abuse” within the legislation. This is to avoid being overly prescriptive and enabling defendants to resist claims by arguing that certain types of abuse do not fall within the limitation exception.

Rather it will be for the Courts to decide whether a defendant’s conduct is sexual abuse.

We note that guidance defining what constitutes “child sexual abuse” has been issued by IICSA. This guidance is based on a definition adopted by the Department for Education in the “Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023” document.

Why a change in position from that indicated in the original consultation on this matter (started under the previous Government)?

Background: The previous Government had indicated in the consultation document that it did not support removal of the limitation period. Rather, they supported reversal of the burden of proof and codifying existing judicial guidance (from the case of Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v Carroll).

Responses to the consultation showed overwhelming support for the removal of the limitation period. It is for previous ministers to say why they didn`t support this measure. This Government is determined that the voice of victims and survivors will be heard loud and clear.

The Government believes that the recommendations made by IICSA, and supported by responses to the public consultation, will make it easier for victims and survivors to achieve the compensation which they deserve.

What other measures will you be undertaking in this field (child sexual abuse)?

We will also engage with the Civil Justice Council and Civil Procedure Rule Committee on the potential development of a specific Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) for child sexual abuse claims.

PAPs are used in many areas of civil litigation and encourage parties to follow best practice in pursuing disputes, sharing evidence and encouraging engagement. They are recognised as contributing to the prospects of cases being settled or resolved at an earlier stage, or at least narrowing the issues in dispute.

We will undertake this work at a later stage – we wish to focus on the substantive change to the law in this first phase of reform.

Why have you decoupled these measures from reform of the Law of Apologies?

IICSA found that the existing three-year time limit was one of the main barriers to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse currently getting access to justice. Therefore, given its importance, we believe that it is right that this change is prioritised and made at the first opportunity.

By comparison, the law already allows apologies to be offered. Rather than fundamental reform IICSA found that the law in this area simply needs clarification. The Government accepts this and will take it forward in due course.