Why scrapping time limits for child abuse claims matters - Jacob Shaw
The abolition of limitation periods for child sexual abuse claims is one of the most significant legal reforms for survivors in decades. With the Crime and Policing Act now receiving Royal Assent, survivors will no longer be prevented from bringing civil claims simply because they did not do so before the age of 21. The changes could come into force as early as June 29, 2026.
For many survivors, this is not a technical legal reform. It is recognition of a simple reality: the effects of child sexual abuse do not operate to legal timetables.
Under the previous law, survivors were generally expected to bring a claim within three years of turning 18. While courts could allow claims to proceed later, survivors were often forced to justify why they had not come forward sooner before the abuse itself was ever properly examined.
That never sat comfortably with what we know about trauma. Shame, fear and coercion can affect survivors for years. Many do not disclose abuse until adulthood. Some never do. Removing that barrier is long overdue.
And the impact is not merely procedural. For many survivors, a civil claim is about far more than compensation. It is about answers, accountability and recognition. Compensation cannot undo the harm caused by abuse, but it can fund therapy, support recovery and acknowledge the impact abuse has had on a person's life.
At Simpson Millar, we represent survivors of child sexual abuse every day. We also acted on behalf of Core Participants during the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).
Through that work, we saw first-hand the courage required for survivors to tell their stories and the strength of feeling behind calls for reform. We also saw the frustration caused by delays in implementing recommendations that many survivors believed were urgently needed.
This change reflects years of campaigning by survivors and the findings of IICSA, which repeatedly heard evidence about the unfairness of forcing victims to explain delayed disclosure before their experiences could properly be considered.
It should also be viewed in the context of a broader national reckoning with child sexual abuse.
Here in Yorkshire, those issues are far from abstract. The child sexual exploitation scandal in Rotherham helped expose the devastating consequences of institutional failings and changed the national conversation around safeguarding, accountability and how victims are treated.
Removing limitation periods is part of that wider shift. It recognises that survivors should not face additional barriers to justice because of the lasting impact of abuse or the failures of those who should have protected them. That does not mean the work is finished.
The decision not to introduce equivalent reforms for survivors of childhood physical abuse raises legitimate questions about consistency. Meanwhile, the Act's new mandatory reporting duty falls short of the model originally recommended by IICSA, which proposed a specific criminal offence for professionals who failed to report child sexual abuse.
Whether the new duty proves effective will depend on more than legislation. Safeguarding requires organisations to act decisively when concerns are raised. Without that commitment, legal duties risk becoming little more than a box-ticking exercise.
Ultimately, these reforms are about accountability. They make it harder for institutions to rely on the passage of time as a defence and reinforce the expectation that concerns about child sexual abuse must be acted upon, not ignored.
No reform can undo the harm caused by child sexual abuse. But removing one of the biggest barriers to justice is a significant step forward.
Jacob Shaw is a solicitor in the Abuse team at Simpson Millar.