Why changes to child sexual abuse claim time limits matter for survivors

Why delayed disclosure matters 

One of the fundamental problems with the previous approach was that it often failed to reflect the realities of trauma and abuse. In practice, many survivors do not disclose what happened to them until years, and sometimes decades, later. The reasons for this are complex and deeply personal. Feelings of shame, fear, guilt, coercion and mistrust can persist long into adulthood, particularly where abuse occurred within institutions or was committed by someone in a position of trust. 

Many survivors spend years trying to process what happened before feeling able to speak about it. Others may have disclosed concerns as children but found themselves ignored, dismissed or simply not believed. Against that backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising that many people have historically found themselves facing limitation arguments and having to explain the reasons for the delay in bringing their claim. 

The forthcoming reforms recognise that delayed disclosure is not unusual in child sexual abuse cases. Rather, it is often a direct consequence of the abuse itself. 

A long overdue change 

Under the previous legal framework, survivors were generally expected to issue a claim at court within three years of their 18th birthday. Whilst courts had discretion to allow claims to proceed outside that period, survivors were often required to explain why they had not come forward sooner and why a claim should still be allowed to continue. 

That process could feel particularly difficult for individuals who had already spent years grappling with the effects of abuse. 

The changes introduced through the Crime and Policing Act 2026 are significant because they shift the focus away from why a survivor delayed and Defendants will now need to demonstrate why a fair trial cannot take place because of the passage of time, rather than survivors having to justify why their case should be allowed to proceed. 

This does not mean every claim for abuse in childhood will automatically succeed. Evidence will still be required, and the circumstances of each individual case will need to be considered. What it does mean is that one of the most significant procedural barriers facing survivors has been removed. 

The wider significance for survivors 

For many people, a civil claim is about far more than financial compensation. 

Throughout my work in abuse claims, I have seen that survivors often want answers to questions they may have carried for years. They want to understand what happened, whether concerns were raised, whether organisations knew or should have known about the abuse, and whether opportunities to protect them were missed. 

In many cases, survivors are seeking accountability from institutions that failed in their safeguarding responsibilities. Compensation can play an important role in recognising the harm suffered and funding treatment or support, but for many people it is only one part of a much wider process. 

That is why these reforms matter. They acknowledge that justice should not be determined solely by whether someone felt able to come forward within a particular timeframe, especially when the abuse itself may have contributed to the delay. 

The role of IICSA and survivor campaigning 

These changes have not happened in isolation. They follow years of campaigning by survivors and recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. 

At Simpson Millar, we acted on behalf of Core Participants during IICSA and saw first-hand the courage required for survivors to share their experiences. The Inquiry heard extensive evidence about delayed disclosure, institutional failings and the barriers survivors faced when seeking accountability through both the criminal and civil justice systems. 

Many survivors described the frustration of feeling that the legal system did not properly reflect the realities of trauma. The recommendation to reform limitation periods was born from those experiences and from a recognition that the law needed to evolve. 

In that respect, the forthcoming changes represent more than a procedural reform. They represent an acknowledgement of what survivors have been saying for many years. 

Part of a wider conversation about accountability 

The removal of the limitation period should also be viewed within the broader national conversation about child sexual abuse, safeguarding and institutional accountability. 

Over recent decades, public inquiries, investigations and survivor testimony have exposed serious failings across a range of settings, including schools, care homes, religious organisations, youth groups and sports institutions. In towns such as Rotherham and Rochdale, investigations revealed that vulnerable children were subjected to serious sexual exploitation over a number of years, whilst opportunities to intervene and protect them were missed. Reviews and inquiries identified failures by multiple agencies, including concerns that reports from victims were not always taken seriously and that warning signs were not acted upon effectively. 

For many survivors, the lasting impact came not only from the abuse itself but also from feeling that the institutions responsible for protecting them failed to listen when concerns were raised. 

Removing the limitation period does not undo those failures. It does, however, send an important message that the passage of time should not automatically shield organisations from scrutiny where serious safeguarding concerns existed. 

The work is not finished 

Whilst these reforms are welcome, they should not be viewed as the end of the conversation. 

Questions remain about the absence of equivalent changes for survivors of childhood physical abuse and whether further reforms may be needed in the future. IICSA also recommended fundamental changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, including to time limits, but these have not been implemented and there remain no plans to do so. There is also ongoing debate about mandatory reporting and whether the measures ultimately introduced go far enough to ensure concerns about child sexual abuse are identified and acted upon at the earliest opportunity. 

Legislation alone cannot prevent abuse. Effective safeguarding requires a culture in which concerns are taken seriously, organisations are willing to challenge poor practice, and accountability exists at every level. 

The success of any reform will ultimately be measured not by what is written in legislation, but by whether it improves outcomes for survivors and helps prevent future harm. 

Looking ahead 

No legal reform can undo the harm caused by child sexual abuse, nor can it erase the lasting impact that abuse can have on an individual's life. 

What these changes can do is remove one of the most significant legal barriers that many survivors have faced when seeking accountability through the civil courts. In doing so, they bring the law closer to reflecting the realities of trauma, delayed disclosure and institutional failure. 

For many survivors, that may mean something simple but profoundly important: the opportunity to have their experiences heard and considered on their merits, rather than being defined by the passage of time.