Clause 87 of the Crime and Policing Bill removed the current three-year limitation period for claims brought by victims and survivors, implementing a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). The clause did this by creating a new s 11ZB in the Limitation Act 1980, under which an action could be dismissed if the defendant could satisfy the court that allowing it to continue would cause them ‘substantial prejudice’.
However, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) warned this would give defendants in some child sexual abuse civil cases an extra legal route to force proceedings to be dropped. APIL argued the proposed defence was unnecessary and would cause delays and additional trauma to victims. The defence was not part of the IICSA recommendations.
The government informed peers this week it is dropping the ‘substantial prejudice’ defence from the clause. The Bill returns to the House of Lords for scrutiny next week.
Kim Harrison, immediate past president of APIL, said: ‘We are relieved the government has listened to survivors of abuse and campaign organisations like APIL and decided not to go ahead with this totally unwarranted extra protection for defendants.
‘Victims of abuse have lived through unimaginable horrors and it takes a lot for survivors to speak out. They should not be forced to endure needless anguish when they turn to the courts for help.
‘We lobbied peers explaining that there is already sufficient protection for defendants as courts can dismiss a case if it is not possible for them to receive a fair trial, as is their right under Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It would have been completely unjust for survivors of abuse had this extra defence been included in the legislation. It would have led to needless delays and the collapse of some cases.’
.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=9a8f1ea9_1)
