ACCOUNT

log reg

 

ACCOUNT     log reg

lonelychild.jpg

Tackling child sexual abuse: progress update

The Home Office has published it's response to to the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).

The government advises that it is "committed to doing everything in its power to prevent the horrors of child sexual abuse, providing the national and local leadership required to tackle offending, protect children from harm, and support victims and survivors".

This update sets out the steps the government will take to act on the recommendations in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), as well as broader measures to tackle the evolving threat from child sexual abuse and exploitation.

Published 9 April 2025

To view the full report, please click here

Room.jpg

Church of England rejects fully independent safeguarding

The Church of England's governing body has rejected a fully independent safeguarding model to deal with abuse cases.

General Synod members instead adopted an alternative proposal described as a "way forward in the short term" ahead of a move to full independence in the future.

But child safety expert Prof Alexis Jay - who had called for a fully independent model - described the decision as "deeply disappointing" and "devastating for victims and survivors".

The vote comes after a turbulent period for the Church, which has seen the resignation of former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby over his handling of an abuse case and criticism of Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell's links to another.

Mr Cottrel, who has stepped in as temporary head of the Church, said he supported "independence in safeguarding" and was "disappointed" that it would now happen "two stages".

He added that he would "fully commit" himself to "implementing synod's decision and making it happen".

The Church has been accused of failings over the way it dealt with cases of sexual and physical child abuse spanning decades and launched a review of its safeguarding procedures.

The Synod had been expected to vote on a model backed by Prof Alexis Jay - who previously chaired the national Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and another model.

However, following an amendment, the Prof Jay-backed model - which proposed that all safeguarding staff would be entirely independent of the Church - was not voted on at all, and a less ambitious proposal was adopted.

That will see the creation of an independent central safeguarding team for the Church - but with diocesan and cathedral safeguarding officers continuing in the same roles.

The alternative model would have also made the Church's safeguarding officers around the country part of that independent body, independent of church organisations.

Both the models that had been proposed for changing safeguarding took into account the recommendations of independent reports, including those by Prof Alexis Jay and barrister Sarah Wilkinson, the Church previously said.

Given the turmoil and negative attention the Church has garnered over recent months following major abuse scandals, adopting a more ambitious model would have undoubtedly been an opportunity to send out a clear message that it really was serious about making the Church a safer place.

Throughout the debate, many in the chamber – including Mr Cottrell, who has been under pressure and scrutiny himself – implored the synod to take up that opportunity.

Earlier, Prof Jay had said the Church risked falling further into crisis if it failed to adopt the more independent system for keeping people safe.

Speaking to BBC News after the vote, Prof Jay said: "It will be devastating for victims and survivors, whose trust and confidence will absolutely not be restored as a consequence of the decision.

"In fact, it is more likely to alienate them."

Some opponents of the more independent safeguarding model said they were simply worried it could not have been implemented.

Bishop of Blackburn Philip North - who tabled the amendment slimming down the choice put before the synod to one option - argued that the simpler model could be implemented more quickly.

He described the other option as "eye-wateringly complex" and said it could take years to implement when the Church and nation were "demanding change now".

He added that while the church implemented the changes - which would allow for a "far greater degree of independence in safeguarding" - a fully independent model was still "very much on the table" in the longer term.

However, at this crucial juncture for the Church, the optics of making a commitment to be as ambitious as possible might have been far better than what they have ended up with.

Instead, they the Church appears to have been far less bold - but with a promise they will try to do better in the future.

The vote has been strongly condemned by campaigners who have called for sweeping changes to how the Church deals with abuse.

Lucy Duckworth from the Survivors Trust told BBC News: "It is a devastating blow, not just for the victims and survivors of clerical abuse but for the one million children who attend the 4,600 schools under the Church of England's power today.

"This is a shameful disregard for the lifelong suffering that their employees and clergy have caused.

"I feel really let down, speaking both as a survivor of clerical abuse as well as a campaigner and policy adviser who represents survivors."

Andrew Graystone, a victim and survivors' advocate, said the decision to reject a fully independent safeguarding model was a "punch in the gut for victims and survivors of church abuse" and accused church leaders of "shocking arrogance".

Correction 14 February 2025: This article originally suggested that the Synod had been expected to vote on separate proposals for safeguarding by Prof Alexis Jay and barrister Sarah Wilkinson, with the Wilkinson proposal subsequently adopted. However Sarah Wilkinson's 2023 independent review into the failure of the Independent Safeguarding Board did not involve any proposals for future safeguarding models for the Church of England and we have amended our story to make that clear.

For a full report, please see here

 

 

girl_in_silhouette.jpeg

Crime and Policing Bill: Child criminal exploitation and 'cuckooing' factsheet

Crime and Policing Bill: Child criminal exploitation and 'cuckooing' factsheet 

Published 25 February 2025

What are we going to do? 

We are creating a new standalone offence to prosecute adults committing child criminal exploitation and creating a new regime for child criminal exploitation civil preventative orders to prevent exploitative conduct committed by adults against children from occurring or re-occurring. 

We are also creating a new bespoke criminal offence to tackle the practice known as ‘cuckooing’ (home takeover), whereby criminals take control over the home of another person to use it for criminal activity. 

These measures will contribute to the government’s Safer Streets Mission. 

How are we going to do it? 

Child criminal exploitation 

The bill will make it an offence for an adult to use a child to commit any criminal activity. The offence will target the inherent imbalance of power that is unduly exercised by an adult who uses a child to commit crime and, as such, culpability will be restricted to adults aged 18 and over and victims will be limited to children under the age of 18. The new offence will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. 

In addition to a new offence, new child criminal exploitation civil preventative orders will be available at the end of criminal proceedings (including both upon conviction and on acquittal)  for offences related to CCE and upon application (i.e. without a criminal trial), and will allow the court to impose prohibitions and requirements upon someone at risk of committing or recommitting child criminal exploitation conduct, where such an order is necessary to protect children from the risk of being criminally exploited. The court could, for example, impose restrictions on; contacting specific individuals (directly or indirectly), either personally or by any electronic means; or going to a specific place. Breach of an order will be a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. 

The bill will also confer a power on the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to support implementation of the new child criminal exploitation offence and orders to ensure that they are used consistently and effectively. Relevant bodies, such as chief officers of police and the National Crime Agency, will have a duty to have due regard to the guidance. 

The child criminal exploitation offence will also be added to the list of ‘criminal lifestyle offences’ in Schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The practical effect of this is that a person found guilty of the new offence of child criminal exploitation will automatically be considered to have a criminal lifestyle and make a confiscation order accordingly under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Ultimately, all of their assets will potentially be seen as derived from crime and subject to confiscation, which reflects the serious nature of this type of offending. 

The bill will also ensure that victims are automatically eligible for “special measures” (for example, giving pre-recorded evidence or evidence in court from behind a screen) when giving evidence in court proceedings relating to the offences.  

Cuckooing (home takeover) 

The bill will make it an offence to exercise control over another person’s dwelling without their consent for the purpose of enabling the dwelling to be used in connection with the commission of specified criminal activity. 

The specified criminal activity includes the types of criminal activity that cuckooing is typically used to facilitate, for example, drugs offences, sexual offences and offensive weapons offences. The bill provides for a power for the Secretary of State to amend the list of specified offences to future-proof this new offence against exploitative criminals who might adapt cuckooing to other crime types. 

It will be an offence to control a person’s dwelling in connection with criminal activity without that person’s consent. A person cannot consent to control of their dwelling if: they are under 18 years old; do not have capacity to give consent; have not been given sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision; have not given consent freely; or have withdrawn their consent. The consent of an occupant may not freely be given where it is obtained by coercion, deception or other forms of abusive behaviour. 

The offence will carry a maximum penalty on indictment of five years’ imprisonment or a fine (or both). 

To support implementation of the offence and strengthen the wider response to cuckooing, the government will publish guidance for police and other operational partners. The guidance will help improve identification of cuckooing and support professionals to take effective action against perpetrators and identify the best pathways to support and safeguard victims. 

As with the child criminal exploitation offence, the bill will also add the cuckooing offence to the list of ‘criminal lifestyle offences’ in Schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as well as ensuring that victims are automatically eligible for “special measures” when giving evidence in court proceedings relating to the cuckooing offence. 

Background

Child criminal exploitation 

Child criminal exploitation is a form of child abuse where a child is exploited into taking part in criminal activity, often by criminal gangs. County lines exploitation is one of the most recognised forms of child criminal exploitation, whereby drug-dealing gangs manipulate and coerce children into drug running across the country, often exposing them to violence, threats and intimidation. It has a devastating impact on victims, subjecting them to a range of harms and reducing their life chances. 

Cuckooing (home takeover) 

Cuckooing refers to the practice whereby criminals take over a person’s dwelling (often the home of a vulnerable person, such as an individual living with substance addition or physical or mental disabilities) to use it for illegal activities and is often associated with anti-social behaviour and the exploitation of children by criminal gangs. 

A person’s home should be a place where they feel safe and secure and when a home is taken over and used for criminal activity this causes significant harm to the resident. The government therefore wants to ensure that those responsible for the practice of cuckooing are more effectively held responsible for the harm caused.  

Cuckooing is often linked to the county lines drug distribution model. Through the County Lines Programme, the Home Office funds the National County Lines Coordination Centre to coordinate the national response to county lines. The Home Office continues to work closely with the National County Lines Co-ordination Centre and wider partners to both raise awareness of cuckooing and share effective practice to tackle this abhorrent practice. 

Key Statistics 

Child criminal exploitation 

There is limited data available on the prevalence of CCE and number of offenders, or on the total number of criminally exploited children. Where data are available, for example Children in Need (CiN) data, they are likely to be an underestimate of the true prevalence, as they exclude children not known to social services.    

In England, the latest Children in Need Census data (for assessments in the year ending 31 March 2024) recorded 15,750 episodes of need where child criminal exploitation was identified as a concern. There were 10,180 episodes of need where children being part of a street or organised crime gang was identified as a concern. [footnote 1]

In 2023, there were 3,123 referrals of child potential victims for criminal exploitation to the National Referral Mechanism (the system for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery). 

Police data published by the National County Lines Coordination Centre in its County Lines Strategic Threat Risk Assessment show that 22% of those individuals involved in County lines are children, equivalent to 2,888 children recorded as involved in County lines in 2023/24. The 2023/24 Risk Assessment also assesses that most children involved in County lines are aged 15 to 17 and that they are mainly recorded in the most dangerous ‘runner’ or ‘workforce’ roles within the drugs supply chain and linked to exploitation.

Cuckooing (home takeover) 

There is no centrally held data on the number of cuckooed properties but the National County Lines Co-ordination Centre regularly coordinates weeks of intensive action against county lines gangs that all police forces take part in. As reported by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the week of intensification that took place between 25 November and 1 December 2024, saw 853 suspected cuckooed properties visited. 

Frequently asked questions

Child criminal exploitation 

Exploiting a child to engage in criminal conduct is already addressed in law – isn’t the proposed new offence of child criminal exploitation just window dressing? 

While it is the case that existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and inchoate offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007 (of encouraging or assisting crime), can be used to prosecute offenders, existing legislation does not address child criminal exploitation (i.e. using children, intending that they commit criminality) as a specific form of offending. 

Introducing a bespoke new offence to tackle child criminal exploitation will provide the police with an additional tool to tackle this offending which reflects more specifically the harm done to child victims and recognise offenders more clearly as exploiters of children. 

Why are you limiting culpability to adults aged over 18? What about children who exploit their peers, or younger children?  

The purpose of these measures is to stop adults exploiting children. By limiting culpability to adults aged 18 and over, we are targeting the inherent imbalance of power that is unduly exercised by an adult who uses a child to commit crime for their benefit. 

While we recognise that children can and do recruit their peers into criminality, it is not the government’s intention to capture that behaviour in a child exploitation offence.  

Why do we need more orders when there are already plenty available? 

It is true that there are a range of existing preventative orders (including modern slavery and human trafficking orders and serious crime prevention orders), however none specifically seek to prevent the criminal exploitation of children. 

Bespoke child criminal exploitation orders will ensure that courts have the ability to focus prohibitions and requirements on those which are necessary to protect children from being criminally exploited. 

Other benefits include the deterrent effect of labelling someone as a child exploiter and further awareness raising of child criminal exploitation among practitioners. 

Cuckooing (home takeover)

What support is available to victims of cuckooing? 

Victims of cuckooing are often targeted by perpetrators because they are vulnerable. These vulnerabilities may include disability, drug or alcohol dependency, age or social isolation. Having their home taken over and used for criminality can have a devastating impact on already vulnerable individuals and can be made worse by fear that they will not be believed or treated as a victim. 

Introducing a new offence of cuckooing will not only strengthen the response to perpetrators but will also support better identification of and support for victims. 

Currently, in most cases, the police will refer adult victims of cuckooing to Adult Social Care in order for them to be triaged and/or assessed for support from local authorities. Responsibility for safeguarding adult victims of cuckooing who have care and support needs would fall to the local authority.  

The government will publish guidance on cuckooing, including information on how police and partners can support and safeguard victims of cuckooing. 

Cuckooing is a form of adult criminal exploitation – you are introducing a child criminal exploitation offence, why are you not introducing a broader adult criminal exploitation offence? 

The child criminal exploitation offence recognises the particular harm associated with exploiting a child to take part in criminal activity. The government is clear that children cannot consent to their exploitation, however where adults are involved in criminal activity, there needs to be recognition that, adults may be in a position to make informed decisions about their involvement and therefore a more nuanced approach is needed. 

In some cases, exploitation of adults will be captured under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, by inchoate offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007 of assisting or encouraging another person to commit an offence, and/or by legislation that covers the means used to carry out the exploitation such as use of violence or threats.  

The section 45 defence of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides a statutory defence for victims of modern slavery. The defence is designed to protect both adults and children from prosecution for crimes they have been compelled or forced to commit as a result of their exploitation.  

The cuckooing offence seeks to recognise the harm caused by the take-over of a person’s home for criminal purposes. As such, cuckooing is a particularly insidious and harmful form of adult exploitation which not only causes harm to the victim but often facilitates violent and exploitative forms of drug dealing and drives anti-social behaviour in communities.

You can find a full copy of it here.

 

dbs-check.jpg

Youth warnings, reprimands and cautions will no longer be automatically disclosed to employers who require Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificates from 28 November.

The changes, which come as a result of a Supreme Court judgment that found some elements of the existing filtering rules for Standard and Enhanced DBS checks were disproportionate, are intended to make it easier for people with certain convictions to find employment.

The multiple conviction rule will also be removed, meaning that if an individual has more than one conviction, regardless of offence type or time passed, each conviction will be considered against the remaining rules individually, rather than all being automatically disclosed on the certificate.

Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock – a group that campaigns for people with convictions – welcomed the changes, but said they did not go far enough to improve access to work for some people with childhood convictions. 

“The changes coming in on 28 November are a crucial first step towards achieving a fair system that takes a more balanced approach towards disclosing criminal records,” he said. “However, we are still left with a criminal records system where many people with old and minor criminal records are shut out of jobs that they are qualified to do.

“We found that over a five-year period, 380,000 checks contained childhood convictions, with 2,795 checks including convictions from children aged just ten. Many of these childhood convictions will continue to be disclosed despite these changes.

“Reviews by the Law Commission, Justice Select Committee, former Chair of the Youth Justice Board Charlie Taylor and David Lammy MP have all stressed the need to look at the wider disclosure system. The government’s plan for jobs should include a wider review of the criminal records disclosure system to ensure all law-abiding people with criminal records are able to move on into employment and contribute to our economic recovery.”

New DBS guidance advises organisations to update their recruitment processes in light of the changes and check the Ministry of Justice website for which convictions or cautions should be disclosed by job candidates.

It suggests that employers ask job candidates: “Do you have any convictions or cautions (excluding youth cautions, reprimands or warnings) that are not ‘protected’ as defined by the Ministry of Justice?”

It also urged employers to include the following paragraph in their standard job application forms: “The amendments to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (2013 and 2020) provides that when applying for certain jobs and activities, certain convictions and cautions are considered ‘protected’. This means that they do not need to be disclosed to employers, and if they are disclosed, employers cannot take them into account.”

The guidance says: “Employers can only ask an individual to provide details of convictions and cautions that they are legally entitled to know about.

“If an employer takes into account a conviction or caution that would not have been disclosed, they are acting unlawfully under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

“Employers should conduct a case-by-case analysis of any convictions and cautions disclosed and consider how, if at all, they are relevant to the position sought. It would be advisable for the employer to keep records of the reasons for any employment decision (and in particular rejections), including whether any convictions or cautions were taken into account and, if so, why.”

Cedit: Ashley Webber - Personnel Today

SchoolDrugsArrest.jpg

A county lines drug gang forced 40 children to deal cannabis and cocaine at a single school.

The teens, some as young as 14, had been supplied with drugs and dealing kits including deal bags and scales. 

Police say grown-up dealers had a network of 40 pupils dealing at the school which has just over 1,200 pupils - meaning one in thirty was possibly selling drugs.

It is suspected that girls as young as 14 at Kingsdown School in Swindon, Wiltshire, have been pestered for sex in exchange for cocaine.

And the dawn police raid yesterday - on the eve of GCSE results - revealed the extent of the teens coerced into the operation.

Wiltshire Police arrested a 27-year-old man during the raid. He has since been released under investigation.

Sgt Nathan Perry, who planned the 7am raid, said: "We found the person we're looking for, we've managed to safeguard the children who were at risk and we've found drugs.

"We all know about county lines and the risks associated with that.

"The difficulty with this type of drugs operation is that it's specifically targeting very young children in order to get them to deal drugs.

"Some of the information we've been passed is that children are not only being coerced into this activity, but they're also being physically threatened.

"If they go to police or teachers they'll be harmed," he added. 

Police were said to have been alerted to the gang at Kingsdown School.

A pair of older teen boys, both 16, are believed to have been supplying a network of up to 40 children in their mid-teens at the Swindon school.

The 27-year-old was arrested during the morning raid on suspicion of possession of class B drugs with intent to supply and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.

The raid came as Swindon police focused their sights on modern slavery.

Nationally, police have increasingly turned to modern slavery laws to target drug dealers who force children and vulnerable adults to peddle their product.

Sgt Perry said those convicted could expect sentences of up to 15 years imprisonment.

"You've got children being exploited and young kids being forced to run the drugs. We will take it seriously," he said.

"The sheer nature of the exploitation of these young people is unacceptable.

"If we don't do something to stop that they're potentially going to be at risk for the rest of their lives.

 
"They need that positive engagement and we're not going to be able to do that until we remove their handlers, for want of a better word."
 
If children start becoming more withdrawn, secretive about their possessions and start acquiring cash and expensive clothes without explanation, it could be a sign they are being exploited by the gangs.
 
Article reported by Tom Seaward for the Mirror.

© Copyright . All rights reserved. The Independent Safeguarding Service is a Community Interest Company, registered in England: No 11062624.