Campaigners have accused the UK government of effectively allowing child abuse to continue by failing to implement recommendations from a seven-year statutory inquiry. The claim was made at the High Court in London, where a judge allowed a legal action against the Home Office to proceed.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation is taking action over the government's alleged failure to adopt all changes recommended by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), which ran from 2015 to 2022. At a hearing on Thursday, Mr Justice Kimblin ruled the case could continue, stating it was arguable that the foundation had a 'legitimate expectation' that the recommendations would be implemented.
Christopher Jacobs, representing the foundation, told the court that 17 of the 20 IICSA recommendations had not been implemented as of 8 July 2025. The three recommendations at the centre of the claim involve recording perpetrators' demographics, ending pain-inducing restraint on children in custody, and improving access to justice for children in care. Jacobs argued that about 500,000 children are sexually abused annually and that the government's 'inconsistent and arbitrary approach' had 'effectively allowed the abuse to continue'.
In written submissions, Jacobs stated: 'The obfuscations, denials and delays by successive governments in implementing the thorough and extensively reasoned recommendations of the seven-year inquiry must have contributed to thousands of otherwise preventable cases of sexual abuse.' He added that the government had failed to set a timetable for implementation, calling the matter one of 'national importance and urgency'.
The Home Office is defending the claim. Barrister Jack Anderson argued that the government is not obliged to implement the recommendations, stating they are 'recommendations, but no more than that'. He said the Home Secretary had accepted four recommendations relating to her department and that the government 'wants to get policy right, and that takes time'.
Speaking after the hearing, Maggie Oliver said: 'We brought this action, knowing that the chance of winning was remote. When we went in there today, though, I felt that the judge was human.' She added that the legal action was about 'fighting for every child that is failed by a system that doesn't work'.
