Historic Sexual Offences

About Historic Sexual Offences

Historic sexual offences — often referred to as non-recent sexual offences — are allegations of sexual conduct that occurred months, years, or even decades before the complaint is made. Since the Jimmy Savile scandal and the subsequent Operation Yewtree investigations, the police and CPS have significantly increased their willingness to investigate and prosecute historic allegations. Cases from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s are routinely brought before the courts.

The law that applies to a historic allegation is the law that was in force at the time the offence is said to have been committed, not the law in force today. This means that offences alleged to have occurred before the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force on 1 May 2004 are prosecuted under the earlier legislation — principally the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Indecency with Children Act 1960. The elements of these older offences, and the maximum sentences available, differ from the current law, and understanding these differences is essential to a proper defence.

The passage of time creates significant challenges for both the prosecution and the defence. Witnesses may have died, moved away, or have no memory of the relevant period. Documents, diaries, and records may have been destroyed. Physical locations may have changed beyond recognition. The complainant's account cannot be tested against contemporaneous evidence because none exists. Against this background, the defence must examine whether the allegation is reliable, whether the complainant's memory — potentially spanning decades — is accurate, and whether there is any evidence that supports or contradicts their account.

These cases are among the most difficult to defend because the usual tools of defence — CCTV, forensic evidence, phone records, independent witnesses — are simply not available. The defence must instead focus on the inherent reliability of the complaint, the circumstances in which the disclosure was made, whether there is any evidence of a motive to fabricate, and whether the events described are consistent with what is known about the time, place, and circumstances. Expert evidence about memory and suggestibility may also be relevant.

Why Early Representation Matters

Defending historic allegations requires a different skill set from defending recent cases. We conduct extensive background research — establishing what was happening in our client's life during the period alleged, identifying potential witnesses who can speak to the circumstances, and examining whether the complainant's account is consistent with the known facts about the time and place described. In some cases, we can demonstrate that the events described could not have happened in the way alleged.

We also examine the circumstances in which the disclosure was made. A complaint that emerges during therapy, during a family dispute, or in the wake of a high-profile media case may be less reliable than a spontaneous disclosure. The influences on the complainant's memory — the passage of time, media reporting, conversations with others, and the process of therapy itself — are all relevant to the reliability of the account, and we explore these issues thoroughly.

Where expert evidence about memory is relevant, we instruct psychologists who specialise in the science of memory and recall. Research has shown that memories can be influenced, distorted, and even created by suggestion, and that confidence in a memory bears little relationship to its accuracy. Presenting this evidence to a jury can be powerful, particularly where the allegation rests entirely on the complainant's recall of events that occurred decades ago.