Vulnerable witness protections in civil courts
IICSA · Interim Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse · Issued 25 April 2018 · Addressed to: Ministry of Justice
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation, G
The Chair and Panel recommend that the Ministry of Justice provides in primary legislation that victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in civil court cases, where they are claiming compensation in relation to the abuse they suffered, are afforded the same protections as vulnerable witnesses in criminal court cases. The Chair and Panel understand that cost is already a barrier to victims and survivors considering a civil claim. In considering how to fund the implementation of this recommendation, the Ministry of Justice must ensure that this barrier is not further increased. The Chair and Panel recommend that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee amends the Civil Procedure Rules to ensure that judges presiding over cases relating to child sexual abuse consider the use of protections for vulnerable witnesses.
IICSA, Interim Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse · 25 Apr 2018 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- In May 2023, the government stated that it would consult on strengthening existing judicial guidance on limitation periods for CSA claims and explore options for reform (Government Response to IICSA Final Report, HM Government, May 2023).
- No published legislation providing qualified one-way costs shifting for CSA civil claimants has been identified to March 2026.
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government — initial response
At the request of the MoJ, the Master of the Rolls has agreed to the Civil Justice Council considering these issues, drawing on the experience not only of the criminal but also the family justice systems. A subcommittee of the CJC are specifically looking at this issue, with the aim of making recommendations. The MoJ will then liaise with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee in relation to existing rules.
UK Government · 20 Dec 2018 Written response →
●UK Government — follow-up
A subcommittee of the CJC, led by His Honour Judge Barry Cotter QC, is specifically looking at issues raised by this recommendation. The subcommittee has drafted a consultation document and will produce a final report pulling together consultation responses in the Autumn. The MoJ will then liaise with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.
UK Government · 22 Jul 2019 Written response →
●UK Government — follow-up
On 19 December 2018, the UK government stated that the Civil Justice Council had agreed to consider the issues raised by this recommendation. In February 2020, the Civil Justice Council published its report on vulnerable witnesses and parties within civil proceedings. In April 2021, the Civil Procedure Rules were amended to require courts to provide special measures for vulnerable parties and witnesses in court (CPR Practice Direction 1A). The UK government also decided to legislate for special measures in civil proceedings in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Act enables the court to make a special measures direction in relation to victims and alleged victims of 'specified offences', and victims, or those at risk of being victims, of domestic abuse. It also enables a court to give a direction prohibiting the cross-examination of a victim of a 'specified offence' in civil proceedings by a person who has been convicted or cautioned for that offence, where it is likely to diminish the quality of the victim's evidence, or would cause significant distress to the victim. A 'specified offence' is to be set out in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor and will include child sexual abuse offences.
UK Government · 22 May 2023 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
No published activity has been recorded against this recommendation yet.
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.