A decision to drop controversial legal plans that would cause further trauma to survivors of child sexual abuse has been welcomed by lawyers.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) campaigned against Government plans to give defendants in some child sexual abuse civil cases a new legal route to have proceedings brought against them dropped.
APIL warned Parliament that introducing the new defence for alleged abusers as part of the Crime and Policing Bill was unnecessary. It would have meant that damages cases brought by victims of abuse could be dismissed if the defendant convinced a judge that they would suffer ‘substantial prejudice’ if proceedings went ahead.
“We are relieved that 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,” said Kim Harrison, immediate past president of APIL.
“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,” said Ms Harrison, who specialises in representing abuse survivors.
The Crime and Policing Bill is currently going through Parliament and peers are due to continue their scrutiny in the House of Lords from next week. In a letter to peers the Government has confirmed that the new defence of ‘substantial prejudice’ has been dropped.
The Bill also includes abolishing the three-year time limit for survivors of abuse to bring civil cases for damages against their abusers, which APIL supports.
“The Government had inexplicably added in this extra protection of ‘substantial prejudice’, which was not part of the detailed recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse,” Ms Harrison said.
“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 Article 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,” added Ms Harrison.