We are taking the Government to the High Court over its failure to implement vital recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).

But this is something much bigger.

I believe governments have increasingly used hugely expensive public inquiries to deflect criticism, avoid uncomfortable truths and kick difficult decisions into the long grass, whilst giving the public the illusion that something is being done.

I have spent over twenty years exposing corruption and catastrophic institutional failures to protect children.

I have witnessed the devastating consequences and the extraordinary lengths public bodies will go to protect themselves rather than the children they are supposed to safeguard.

And I believe we are witnessing that same culture of avoidance in the Government’s defence of our judicial review.

IICSA took seven years, heard from over 7,000 survivors and cost taxpayers more than £200 million. It produced 20 recommendations intended to protect children.

Four years later, the key recommendations remain unimplemented.

Yet rather than delivering those changes, the Government has commissioned another three-year inquiry into grooming gangs, costing an estimated £65million.

Another inquiry. Another enormous bill for taxpayers. Another opportunity to kick the ball further down the road.

I believe public inquiries have become convenient political tools.

When public outrage becomes impossible to ignore, governments announce an inquiry. Political pressure subsides, years pass, governments change, and recommendations quietly gather dust. The problem is again “kicked into the long grass”

Meanwhile, children continue to suffer.

And this is not confined to child sexual abuse.

Look at the families of those murdered in Nottingham, who have also fought relentlessly to expose catastrophic failures by the very agencies entrusted with protecting the public.

Their determination to secure accountability and meaningful change is something I understand only too well.

And now we have the heartbreaking case of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, brutally murdered in December 2025.

His family has had to fight for answers about warnings and opportunities that were missed before his death, and about how they were treated by the criminal justice system afterwards.

Yet another independent review has now been announced.

Different tragedies. Different families. But the same fundamental question: why does it take unimaginable suffering, public outrage and relentless campaigning before the State confronts its failures?

And crucially, what happens when these inquiries and reviews conclude?

This is a horrific neglect of the government’s most fundamental duty, to protect its citizens, particularly its most vulnerable.

Our challenge highlights fundamental protections: mandatory collection of data about sexual abusers and victims; outlawing pain-inducing compliance techniques used against children in custody; proper regulation of staff working with vulnerable children in care; a dedicated Cabinet-level Minister for Children; and ensuring victims’ rights under the Victims’ Code are properly respected.

These are basic safeguards, not unreasonable demands.

Yet what again disgusts me the most is the extraordinary lengths the Government is prepared to go in resisting our challenge.

Its lawyers have seemingly used every trick in the book to prevent the Government from being held accountable.

They argue that neither I nor The Maggie Oliver Foundation has the legal standing to bring this case.

Think about that.

A charity supporting survivors every day, founded by a former detective who sacrificed her career exposing these failures, is being challenged over its right to question government inaction.

If we cannot challenge these failures, then who can?

But perhaps even more astonishing is the Government’s reliance on parliamentary privilege.

Its lawyers argue that promises made by ministers in the House of Commons are protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be relied upon in the way our legal challenge contends.

They have even sought the intervention of the Speaker of the House of Commons in connection with these arguments, seeking to prevent those parliamentary statements being used to support our case, even though they’ve also been said outside the House repeatedly!

To me, this is yet another “abuse of power”, an attempt to hide behind parliamentary procedure rather than answer the fundamental questions.

What message does that send to the British public?

Are we seriously expected to accept that ministers can stand in Parliament, make solemn promises to protect children, and subsequently argue those promises cannot be relied upon?

If promises made in the House of Commons cannot be trusted, what on earth can the British public believe?

The Government also argues that it is under no legal obligation to implement public inquiry recommendations.

So why spend hundreds of millions investigating failures, hearing heartbreaking evidence and promising change, if governments can simply walk away afterwards?

Our challenge has attracted support from across the country.

Three courageous women, each personally failed in different ways by institutions entrusted to protect them, have provided statements supporting our case.

These women know the lifelong consequences of abuse and institutional betrayal. Indeed, one of them is now bringing up her granddaughter, as her daughter was so hugely failed that she tragically took her own life! It actually would have been her birthday today…

They are standing alongside us because they desperately want to prevent other children from suffering as they have.

Their voices matter.

We are also grateful for the support of children’s rights charity in Article 39.

This case is not about me. It is about those women, and countless others failed by the system, and future generations of children.

Since IICSA published its recommendations in 2022, an estimated two million children have since experienced sexual abuse, based on the inquiry’s annual prevalence estimate.

How many might have been better protected had meaningful action followed?

Instead, public money is being spent resisting our challenge.

In March, a High Court judge granted permission for our judicial review, describing it as “a paradigm example of public interest litigation”.

Yet the Government continues to challenge our right to bring it.

On Tuesday, our legal team will address these arguments as we ask the Court to examine the Government’s failure to honour its commitments.

I sincerely hope the judge recognises the enormous significance of what is at stake.

Because this case could have far-reaching consequences for every future public inquiry, every ministerial promise and every citizen who expects those in power to be accountable.

We want the new Grooming Gangs Inquiry to succeed. We are working constructively with our team. But unless something changes, what prevents its recommendations from being ignored too?

The families of the Nottingham case and Henry Nowak deserve more than another report gathering dust. So do the thousands of survivors who trusted IICSA with their most painful experiences.

An inquiry must be the beginning of accountability and change, not the end of it.

And all of this doesn’t even begin to address another enormous issue — the almost complete absence of personal accountability for those responsible for these catastrophic failures.

Time and again, children and vulnerable people are failed, lives are destroyed, and yet those in positions of power who made the decisions, ignored the warnings or turned a blind eye rarely face any meaningful consequences.

No criminal accountability. No personal responsibility. Just more apologies, reviews, and promises that lessons will be learned.

But that is another battle, and a subject for another day.

I have spent much of my life challenging powerful institutions that would rather protect themselves than confront uncomfortable truths.

I will not stop now.

Public inquiries must deliver change, not provide governments with an expensive escape route from responsibility.

The greatest cost of government inaction is not measured in millions of pounds.

It is measured in children’s lives, shattered childhoods and suffering that could have been prevented.

Those children deserve better.

The British public deserves better.

And promises made to protect our children MUST mean something.

I’m Taking the Government to Court Over Its Failure to Protect Children

A growing legal and political controversy has emerged after a campaigner announced plans to take the Government to court over what they describe as serious failures to protect vulnerable children. The challenge raises fundamental questions about the responsibilities of ministers, the effectiveness of child protection services and whether public authorities are doing enough to safeguard those who depend on them most.

At the centre of the dispute is a simple but deeply important principle: every child deserves to be safe, protected and treated with dignity. Yet campaigners argue that too many children continue to face abuse, exploitation, neglect and serious harm despite the existence of extensive safeguarding legislation.

The decision to pursue legal action represents an escalation in the campaign for greater government accountability. Rather than relying solely on political promises or public statements, the campaigner intends to use the courts to demand answers about the Government’s responsibilities and the measures it has taken to protect children.

The case could also reopen a wider national debate about whether Britain’s existing child protection arrangements are sufficiently effective.

Why Take the Government to Court?

Taking a government to court is a serious decision that usually follows concerns that public authorities have failed to meet their legal responsibilities.

In cases involving child protection, legal challenges can examine whether ministers, local authorities or other public bodies have fulfilled their statutory duties.

These responsibilities can include preventing abuse, responding to safeguarding concerns, investigating allegations and ensuring that vulnerable children receive appropriate support.

Campaigners argue that the Government cannot simply express concern whenever another child is harmed. It must demonstrate that the systems designed to protect children are functioning effectively.

The central argument behind this legal challenge is that protecting children should be a fundamental government responsibility rather than a secondary political priority.

If public authorities have failed to act appropriately, those failures must be examined independently and transparently.

However, a court challenge must establish the relevant legal duties, identify the alleged failures and provide evidence showing how those responsibilities may have been breached.

Children Cannot Protect Themselves

Children are among the most vulnerable members of society.

Unlike adults, they often have limited control over their living circumstances and may depend entirely on parents, guardians, schools and public institutions for their safety.

Some children experience abuse within their own homes. Others face exploitation, neglect, bullying or mistreatment in environments where they should be protected.

For a child experiencing abuse, asking for help can be extremely difficult.

Fear, shame, threats and emotional manipulation may prevent victims from speaking openly. Some children may not even understand that what is happening to them is wrong.

This is why effective safeguarding systems are essential.

Teachers, social workers, healthcare professionals and police officers must be able to recognise warning signs and respond appropriately.

When concerns are ignored, information is not shared or investigations are delayed, vulnerable children may remain exposed to danger.

Campaigners argue that these problems require more than additional guidance documents. They require effective enforcement, proper funding and clear accountability.

The Pressure on Britain’s Child Protection System

Local authorities across England face significant responsibilities when dealing with children who may be at risk.

Social workers are expected to assess safeguarding concerns, work with families, coordinate support and intervene when children are believed to be in danger.

However, child protection services operate under considerable pressure.

High caseloads, staff shortages, recruitment difficulties and financial constraints can make it harder for professionals to provide the attention that individual children require.

Schools and healthcare organisations also face challenges when identifying children who may be experiencing abuse or neglect.

The problem is particularly serious when information is held by several different organisations.

A school may notice changes in a child’s behaviour, while a healthcare professional may identify unexplained injuries and a social worker may receive concerns from another source.

If these organisations fail to communicate effectively, important warning signs may be overlooked.

A successful child protection system therefore depends on cooperation between institutions and the ability to act quickly when credible concerns emerge.

Government Accountability Must Mean More Than Promises

One of the strongest arguments made by campaigners is that governments must accept responsibility for the systems they establish and oversee.

Ministers regularly announce new safeguarding policies, reviews and initiatives following high-profile cases involving children.

However, campaigners argue that public confidence cannot be restored through announcements alone.

Families need evidence that safeguarding services are improving and that children are receiving meaningful protection.

This includes ensuring that local authorities have sufficient resources, professionals receive appropriate training and serious allegations are investigated without unnecessary delay.

The Government must also ensure that safeguarding failures are examined independently.

When public institutions are criticised, transparency is essential.

Families should be able to understand what happened, which decisions were made and whether mistakes contributed to a child being placed at risk.

Where failures are established, those responsible should face appropriate professional or legal consequences.

The Importance of Listening to Parents and Children

Parents are often the first people to recognise that something is wrong.

They may notice changes in their children’s behaviour, emotional wellbeing, friendships or physical health.

However, some parents have expressed frustration that their safeguarding concerns are not always taken seriously by the relevant authorities.

Campaigners argue that parents should have accessible ways to raise concerns and receive clear explanations about decisions affecting their children.

At the same time, professionals must carefully assess each case rather than automatically accepting or rejecting any particular person’s account.

Children themselves must also have opportunities to speak safely.

Their views should be considered according to their age, understanding and individual circumstances.

A child protection system that fails to listen to children risks overlooking the very people it exists to protect.

What Does the Law Say?

The United Kingdom already has an extensive legal framework intended to protect children.

In England, the Children Act 1989 establishes important responsibilities for local authorities when children are believed to be suffering or at risk of significant harm.

The Children Act 2004 introduced additional arrangements intended to improve cooperation between agencies and strengthen children’s welfare.

The Children and Families Act 2014 also introduced important provisions affecting children’s services and support.

In addition, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates protections relevant to children’s safety and family life.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 8 protects respect for private and family life.

These legal protections can place important obligations on public authorities.

However, the existence of legislation does not automatically guarantee that every child receives effective protection.

The real challenge is ensuring that legal duties are implemented consistently and that failures can be identified and addressed.

Could the Court Force the Government to Act?

The outcome of any legal challenge will depend on the precise claims being made and the evidence presented.

A judicial review, for example, allows courts to examine whether public authorities have acted lawfully when exercising their powers and responsibilities.

A successful challenge may result in a decision being overturned, a public authority being required to reconsider its actions or a declaration that a particular decision was unlawful.

However, courts do not automatically take over the Government’s responsibility for designing national policy.

The legal process must focus on identifiable legal duties and specific alleged failures.

Even so, a successful case could have wider implications.

It might encourage public authorities to review safeguarding procedures, improve decision-making and strengthen accountability.

It could also create additional pressure on ministers to address weaknesses identified during legal proceedings.

Why This Case Matters to Every Family

Child protection should not be treated as an issue affecting only a small number of families.

Every community has a responsibility to ensure that children can grow up in safe environments.

Schools must be safe places to learn. Healthcare services must recognise signs of abuse. Local authorities must respond to safeguarding concerns. Police must investigate suspected criminal behaviour.

Parents and guardians must also be supported when they are trying to protect their children.

The consequences of safeguarding failures can last for years.

Children who experience abuse or neglect may face emotional difficulties, educational disruption and problems forming trusting relationships later in life.

Early intervention can make a significant difference.

The earlier a child receives appropriate protection and support, the greater the opportunity to prevent further harm.

This is why effective safeguarding should be considered an essential investment in Britain’s future.

Conclusion: Protecting Children Must Come Before Political Excuses

The decision to take the Government to court over child protection failures represents a serious challenge to the institutions responsible for safeguarding vulnerable young people.

The central issue is whether the authorities are fulfilling their legal and moral responsibilities to children who cannot always protect themselves.

Government ministers must be prepared to answer difficult questions about funding, professional standards, accountability and the effectiveness of existing safeguarding arrangements.

If mistakes have occurred, they must be investigated. If systems are failing, they must be improved. If children have been placed at risk because public authorities did not act appropriately, those failures must never be dismissed as administrative inconveniences.

Political disagreements should not distract from the fundamental purpose of child protection.

Children deserve safety, dignity, security and the opportunity to grow up without fear.

Taking the Government to court will not automatically solve every problem within Britain’s child protection system. However, legal accountability can provide an important way of challenging decisions, examining failures and demanding that public authorities fulfil their responsibilities.

Ultimately, the true measure of any government should include how effectively it protects those who are most vulnerable.

No child should have to suffer because an institution failed to listen, failed to investigate or failed to act.

Protecting children is not an optional political promise. It is one of the most important responsibilities of a civilised society.