Remove Limitation Period
The Inquiry recommends 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 should 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 should, however, only apply to claims brought by victims and survivors, not claims brought on behalf of victims and survivors' estates.
How was this assessed?
Response
Accepted in Part
Response
Accepted in PartWe accept the critical issue this recommendation seeks to remedy, and we will consult on strengthening existing judicial guidance in child sexual abuse cases and set out options to reform limitation law in child sexual abuse cases.
Progress Timeline
Removal of three-year limitation period and reversal of burden of proof provisions in Crime and Policing Bill, currently in Lords Committee stage (January 2026). Royal Assent expected later in 2026.
Removing three-year limitation period for civil claims; shifting burden of proof from survivors to defendants. Legislation progressing to remove barriers to civil justice for survivors.
Published Evidence
Published assessments of implementation progress from inspectorates, select committees, official progress reports, and other sources. Check the source type badge to see whether each assessment is independent or government self-reported.
Professor Alexis Jay told Home Affairs Committee that £187m was spent on IICSA and "to date none of its final recommendations had been implemented." Called for "full implementation" saying "get it done."
View detailed findings
As of December 2024, none of the 20 final report recommendations had been implemented. The previous government's response was described by Prof Jay as "very weak and, at times, apparently disingenuous."