The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
BEFORE:
MR JUSTICE KIMBLIN
----------------------
BETWEEN:
THE KING
on the application of
MAGGIE OLIVER FOUNDATION
Claimant
- and -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Defendant
----------------------
CHRISTOPHER JACOBS (instructed by Howe & Co) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
JACK ANDERSON (instructed by GLD) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
----------------------
JUDGMENT
----------------------
Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
MR JUSTICE KIMBLIN:
This is an application for permission to apply for judicial review, adjourned into court by my order of 2nd December 2025. The parties have faithfully and carefully complied with the directions in that order, and I am grateful to those who represent the parties for their assistance.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation is a charity which brings this claim in pursuit of its purpose to represent victims of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation. The issues that are within the purpose of the charity and which underlie this claim are evidently serious. They are also numerous, in that abuse and exploitation are found in distinct settings and social environments, and the nature and type of abuse varies between them. For that reason, it is necessary, for example, to have regard to institutions, families, gangs who groom children, and also to ethnicity.
Child sexual abuse is to be distinguished from child sexual exploitation. These particular types of wrongdoing and harm are often referred to by acronyms. I prefer to spell out and make clear what is being discussed, rather than risk obscuring the reality behind antiseptic acronyms. The protection of children is a core duty of each of us and our institutions, including our governing institutions. To stop those who would act in these incomprehensible ways, appropriate systems are necessary.
There are numerous statements about the seriousness of these issues, along the lines of what I have just said, but the question arises as to what is being done about them. That question arises in this case, but only within the limits of this court’s jurisdiction to review the legality of decisions, acts and omissions by public bodies.
This court has no role in the formulation or assessment of the merits of policy or legislative responses, even to the most serious of issues. This case is limited to the lawfulness or not of decisions taken by the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to which, and to what extent, the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse should be implemented, (published on 20th October 2022; ‘IICSA’).
I then turn to what I refer to as IICSA. The inquiry was established following an announcement by Baroness May, as she now is, when she was Secretary of State for the Home Department. On 7 July 2014 she said (Hansard Vol 755, Col 54):
"In my statement today, I want to address two important public concerns. First, that in the 1980s the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sexual abuse; and secondly, that public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children.
As I do so, I want to set three important principles. First, we will do everything we can to allow the full investigation of child abuse and the prosecution of its perpetrators, and we will do nothing to jeopardise those aims. Secondly, where possible, the Government will adopt a presumption of maximum transparency. Thirdly, we will make sure that wherever individuals and institutions have failed to protect children from harm, we will expose those failures and learn the lessons."
There are three recommendations that are more prominent in this claim than others. The first is the data recommendation. Recommendation one was that the Government establish, “a single set of core data relating to child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation.” I refer to this as the single core data set recommendation.
The Government responded to this ‘Recommendation One’ in 2023. Recommendation Six is to amend the Children Act 1989 to give parity of legal protection to children in care. The Government responded that it accepts the absolute need for children and young people to have their voices heard, raise concerns, and challenge any aspect of their care, including where they may be experiencing or at risk of harm. They will address this through the reforms in their "Stable Homes, Built on Love" strategy.
In April 2025 the Government provided a progress update on tackling child sexual abuse. The introduction is as follows:
“[The] Government recognises that child sexual abuse is not a ‘historic’ issue, and across the country children continue to be subject to horrific sexual exploitation and abuse which has a devastating impact on their lives. The Centre for Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse estimates that 500,000 children are sexually abused every year – in the family home, in institutions, in our communities and online. IICSA, for good reason, focused on how institutions have failed to protect children from sexual abuse, but our response must go further, addressing all of the spaces in which child sexual abuse is perpetrated.” (para 6)
The April 2025 progress update addressed each recommendation. In respect of the data recommendation, I set out the material from the update:
“• By December 2025, the latest data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) module on adults’ experiences of sexual abuse as a child, will be published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), providing an updated estimate on how many adults had experienced CSA before the age of 18.
• We will support delivering the ONS’ new “Safety During Childhood Survey” to measure the prevalence of child abuse, which includes child sexual abuse. Subject to agreement on funding, this will involve the ONS:
- Piloting the survey in Autumn 2025/Spring 2026
- Producing an estimate of abuse experienced during childhood by those aged 18-25 by late 2026
- Producing a prevalence estimate of child abuse (including child sexual abuse) to be published in mid/late 2027.
• We will continue funding the CSA Centre which, through its Trends in Official Data report, brings together and provides up to date analysis of the latest official data from children’s social care, policing, criminal justice and health to help inform improvements in prevention and response to child sexual abuse. We will also continue to fund the CSA Centre to provide updates to the Data Insights Hub, which brings together local and national data on the prevalence, identification and response to child sexual abuse. This is to support the assessment of need and improve the availability of appropriate support.
30. The Government will also take forward a wider programme of work to support better multi-agency data-sharing:
• We will improve cross-agency use of data through measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to introduce provision for a single child identifier and ensure the legal framework leaves no doubt on agencies’ ability to share information to safeguard children.
• By May 2025, the Government will introduce an improved police performance framework, including new standards on public protection, child sexual abuse and exploitation.
• By June 2025, the Government will also set out a timetable to act on Baroness Casey’s audit of group-based child sexual exploitation, including any improvements to the collection and quality of data.
• The Government will work with stakeholders across the Criminal Justice System to agree clear targets on child sexual abuse to drive up charges and prosecutions.”
In respect of pain compliance, the Government maintained the view it had earlier expressed, supplemented by reference to an Independent Restraint Review Panel to ensure scrutiny and transparency on use of these techniques.
In respect of amendment to the Children Act 1989, the Government’s view was that the protections of children by local authorities did not require such an amendment. National standards for advocacy for children and young people and related measures would address the vulnerability of children living in residential care.
Overlapping with this 2025 progress update, Baroness Casey was asked by the Secretary of State, (then) the Right Honourable Yvette Cooper MP, to audit the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation of children. On 16 January 2025 the Secretary of State made a statement to Parliament referring to the 7 years of work and the 7,000 personal statements that went into the IICSA final report, observing that shamefully little progress had been made. She stated:
"Before Easter the Government would lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations from the final report, four of those are specifically for the Home Office. I can confirm that we have accepted them in full."
She then went on to say:
"We are taking action, not just on those recommendations but on the additional work that we need to do to protect victims, put perpetrators behind bars and uncover the truth wherever things have gone wrong."
On 30 April 2025 the Prime Minister said, "I strongly believe that we should implement the recommendations that have already been made, and that is what we are doing." As was emphasised by Mr Jacobs on behalf of the Claimant, this was solely concerned with grooming gangs. Baroness Casey reported continued serious concerns but made her recommendations on the basis that the IICSA proposals for change are being implemented.
So far as data were concerned, she said:
"Given how under-reported child exploitation is, the flaws in the data collection and the confusing and inconsistently applied definitions, it is highly unlikely that this accurately reflects the true scale of child sexual exploitation or group-based exploitation. It is a failure of public policy over many years that there remains such limited reliable data in this area."
The Government responded with a five-bullet point list of measures to, as the Government put it, "Deliver this vital change to ensure that information is shared to safeguard children." This included provisions in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is at an advanced stage in its parliamentary scrutiny. It has had its third reading in the House of Lords.
Clause 24 of the Bill is concerned with ill treatment or wilful neglect of children and would amend the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to create an offence which may be committed in a regulated establishment – essentially a home for children as defined in the Care Standards Act 2000. The care worker in such a home may commit an offense of ill-treating or wilfully neglecting a child in the home's care.
Clause 25 is concerned with the responsibilities of a local authority for assisting children and young people in its care with matters such as enhancing their prospects of employment, i.e. the sort of assistance which parents would provide.
The Claim
As articulated in the Claimant’s skeleton argument, the case raises these issues.
Whether the failure to establish a single set of poor data relating to child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation is irrational [ground two].
Whether there has been a failure to prohibit the use of any technique that deliberately induces pain by withdrawing all policy or permitting its use in custodial institutions. Contrary to Article 3, ECHR, otherwise known as the ‘systems duty’ [ground three].
Whether there has been an irrational failure contrary to the best interests of children to amend the Children Act 1989 per Recommendation 6 of IICSA.
Whether the defendant acted unreasonably or in breach of legitimate expectation in failing to implement Recommendations, in particular, 2, 7, 8 and 16 of the IICSA final report [ground one].
Discussion
Issue one – the Data Recommendation
This is a particular feature of Ms Oliver's witness statement. Her evidence is founded in her experience as a Detective Constable of the Greater Manchester Police where she worked in the child protection unit and on investigations of child sexual exploitation. She founded the charity for the survivors of what she refers to as the Rochdale Abuse Scandal and also for other victims of child sexual exploitation and abuse.
At the request of the chair of IICSA, Ms Oliver provided a very lengthy and detailed written statement to highlight the lack of joined up data and investigatory powers and the failure to maintain a reliable data set including the ethnicity of perpetrators and victims. Her core point is that without data it is impossible to identify accurately the scale of the problem nor the profile of the perpetrators and victims and so policing becomes impossible and so the offending cannot be policed, addressed, or confronted.
Mr Jacobs submits that there has been an irrational failure to implement this recommendation. In the statement of facts and grounds, this issue was supported by arguments which relied upon Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. They also relied upon the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the skeleton argument for this permission hearing did not rely on these provisions as a legal basis as Mr Jacobs confirmed, so I shall proceed on the basis of his skeleton argument.
In seeking to persuade me of the irrationality ground, Mr Jacobs emphasised Baroness Casey's observation that:
"We were unable to provide an assessment on the scale of group-based child sexual exploitation. That there is no recent study of the prevalence of child sexual abuse and exploitation in the population. Confusing and inconsistently applied definitions and incomplete data across the police, local authorities, health, and criminal justice system obscure it. The concept of ‘grooming gang’s, while well known to the public, is not captured clearly in any official data set."
This is, of course, a powerful point in favour of the merits of the recommendation. The complaint is that none of the measures so far identified take forward and focus on recommendation one. In fact, it exacerbates the issue of proliferation of data sources. Mr Jacobs used, and if I may say so, effectively, Baroness Casey's audit as a tool, as a means of showing that the current response of the Government is irrational. However, it does not persuade me that what has been done to date is arguably irrational.
Mr Anderson, who appeared for the Secretary of State, contends that:
Firstly, that the response in respect to Recommendation one is not arguably irrational. The Claimant does not explain why it is irrational not to create a single core data set. That is a matter of policy judgment.
There is no duty to implement, secondly, or to respond to recommendations published in a report.
I accept Mr Anderson's submissions as essentially correct. As he submitted, this is a matter of broad policy development, and the range of reasonable responses is necessarily wide. Policy advocacy will never be sufficient before this court. I have borne very much in mind the gravity of the issue which is at large and the firm conclusions of IICSA in this regard, re-emphasised by Baroness Casey last year.
In assessing rationality, the court must have regard to the nature and importance of the issue in order to understand whether the response is an irrational one. But that cuts both ways in that if the issue is of both considerable complexity and considerable importance, as this one is, then the range of reasonable, and therefore lawful, responses must be assessed accordingly.
In respect of the data, the Government has responded step-wise over time to make changes and to introduce measures to address the data issue. I have set out those measures. In my judgment, that step-wise approach is not arguably irrational. Mr Jacobs does not contend, correctly, that the data recommendation, of itself, has the effect of creating a legally enforceable duty to give effect to that recommendation.
Inquiries function only within their statutory scope and their terms of reference with a view to informing those who initiated the inquiry. They will respond within the circumstances which exist at the time that the recommendations are to be considered. Those circumstances, and the weight to be attached to each of them, are matters for government and not for this court, subject to established public law principles. I shall, however, return to this issue in respect of issue four.
Issue two – Pain Compliance
The pain compliance recommendation is unique amongst the 20 recommendations in that the Government has declined to implement it. It has given its reasons and has also put in place measures to moderate, control, and monitor the use of pain compliance techniques. In his oral submissions, Mr Jacobs particularly emphasised the impact of use of pain compliance techniques on the prospects of children reporting abuse. He took me to the fourth conclusion in the IICSA report of 2019, which investigated these matters, and I set out at the quotation at that conclusion:
“The barriers to reporting an incident of sexual abuse for a child are strikingly similar across all institutions on which the Inquiry has reported. The prevalence of violence, the power imbalance between staff and children, a prevailing culture of disbelief when a child complains and the child’s distrust of authority figures all feature significantly. These elements are exacerbated in custodial and secure settings by the absence of normal friendships and intimacy, and the risk factors arising in a confined environment connected to drug use, gang cultures and violence committed by children.”
Firstly, I make clear, as I have found in respect of the first issue, that there is no requirement for the Government to respond or implement a recommendation from an inquiry, subject to established public law principles. The Government is entitled to reject a recommendation in its entirety.
Secondly, it is right to record that there have been substantive responses to this issue, which include amendment to the relevant policy in August 2023, namely that the Government amended, to some degree, its use of force, restraint, and restrictive practices in the Children and Young People Secure Estate Policy.
However, thirdly, this is an issue on which the Claimant's argument is narrow. The Claimant does not contend that the use of physical force should be banned. Rather, it is the failure to ban pain-inducing techniques, which is said to be contrary to Article 3 in the same sense as was explained by Mrs Justice Lang, that in our R(D1914) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1853 (Admin) [264] with the system's duty defined at [110].
Mr Anderson emphasised that no authority is cited by the Claimant for the proposition that harm to others is not permitted in any circumstances. Leading authorities go the other way, citing Bouyrd v Belgium [2016] 62 EHR R32 at [87]. So far as the relevant policy is concerned, the Claimant is ignoring the qualification in the 2023 amendment to the policy, that being words following the word ‘however’, so Mr Anderson submitted.
Mr Anderson also argues that the challenge to the policy is out of time. I consider that this point is one which should be considered at a substantive hearing, so far as it may limit the extent of this ground, or if it arises as to remedy. In my judgment, this ground is arguable, and I grant permission to proceed to a substantive hearing on this issue.
Issue three – Amending the Children Act
The Claimant's challenge is founded on rationality, and I have already set out the background. Mr Anderson submits that the Government cannot be compelled to enact the legislation, and that point is all but conceded by Mr Jacobs, and I agree. The remaining question is whether some steps ought, rationally, to have been taken to bring about the parity of protection at which the IICSA final report sought to establish.
Mr Jacobs submits that it is perverse to rely upon Child Advocacy. The proposal is utterly meaningless and a blank denial, he submits. The response in the April 2025 update is not rationally related to the lacuna identified, and there is no timetable. The lacuna is, in effect, discriminatory. This is an important barrier to disclosure and perpetuates that barrier to disclosure.
I asked counsel to address the Wellbeing Bill, to which I have referred, and Mr Jacobs submitted that the Bill does not create a new duty. He referred me to the interactions with care orders and that something needs to be done to make this procedure happen, which is currently not available.
In my judgment, this ground is not arguable. I repeat my observations about the limitations of the inquiry recommendations. I also note and take account of the fact that the Government has identified its own policy response to this issue via Children's Advocacy. This is a matter for the Government to decide.
I accept Mr Anderson's submission that the Claimant has failed to explain why the measures, which are being put in place, are measures which amount to an irrational response to the recommendation. I also note that there is legislation at an advanced stage before Parliament which is relevant to the control of children's homes and the children who are cared for. These approaches are for Parliament. Permission is refused on this ground.
Issue four – Legitimate Expectation
I grant permission on the fourth issue. This permission extends to permitting argument that a legitimate expectation arose in respect to the data issue (see paragraphs 20 to 29 above).
Conclusion
Having regard to those reasons and conclusions, there will in due course be a substantive hearing.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk