Preparing for the Casey Inquiry: The importance of language

The Casey Review – Baroness Casey’s report published in June 2025, following the National Audit on Grooming-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse – sets out 12 recommendations to address four key aims.

The implications for the entire public sector are far-reaching and the forthcoming inquiry is an important focus for public bodies with safeguarding functions, whether their area is likely to be under direct scrutiny or not.    

Before the inquiry begins, it is important that we take a moment to reflect on how we can best approach the work that will need to be done in the coming months and years. As in all public inquiries, there are a number of core purposes that drive the investigations:

• providing a voice to those who have been failed;
• understanding what systemic failures occurred and why;
• considering what practical steps can be taken to mitigate further harm. 

Throughout this process, we will have to examine how we have previously failed to properly understand the dynamics of the abuse. This extends far past the systems and processes in place throughout the public sector and includes a reflective examination on wider cultural narratives.

Baroness Casey points to this, noting that “…there continues to be an awkwardness in society with acknowledging and discussing child sexual abuse…” which inadvertently facilitates the context for the abuse to occur. Central to our understanding is the language that we use. 

Focus of the report

The Casey Review has set out 12 recommendations to achieve four specific aims, the first of which is to treat children as children and adults who engage in sexual activity with children under 16 face the most serious charge of rape.

Baroness Casey intends to “tighten the law and make it clear that children cannot consent when they have been raped.” To achieve this, Casey is unflinching in her intention to “set out [the realities of the abuse] in un-sanitised terms”.

The challenge we in face from our cultural landscape cannot be overstated. The Casey Review should force us to examine the dangers of this “awkwardness in society” and challenges us to be unflinching in our discussions. 

The importance of the language we use is paramount to our understanding of the systemic failings. In the first instance, the words we use have specific technical legal definitions. Beyond the legalities, they also convey meaning which has very real consequences for victims. 

Legalities of language 

It is helpful to refresh our understanding of the relevant legal definitions  

• Child: Any person under the age of 18 is a child. 

The Children Act 1989 defines a child as any person under the age of 18. This is followed in the 'Working together to safeguard children' guidance, which also explains that the fact that an over 16 year old may have greater independence etc, they are still a child. 

While teenagers may commonly be referred to as “young adults” this is not legally accurate until they are 18 years old, even “young people” can unhelpfully blur boundaries. There are transitional frameworks for providing support to children in their teenage years and into adulthood, but the legal frameworks in place recognise their vulnerability, regardless of their individual presentation. 

As discussed below, the age of consent in many situations will be 16, but this does not change the status of 16 and 17 year olds as children. 

• Age at which a child can consent: 16 and 18 in some circumstances.

The law around consent is detailed and often misinterpreted. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 sets out the legislative framework. Broadly, the key (but not exhaustive) starting point is:

• Sexual activity with a child under 13 is an offence. Activity includes inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. Consent is not a defence, as children under the age of 13 cannot consent. 
• Sexual activity with a child between the ages of 13 and 15, where the perpetrator is 18 years old or older, is an offence. There may be an offence if the perpetrator is younger.
• Where a person is in a position of trust (such as a teacher, sports coach, social worker, doctor, etc.) the age of consent is 18.
• The Act also sets out a number of offences connected with child sexual exploitation for which the threshold age is 18. 

The Casey Review highlights the importance of understanding the law around consent because it informs our interpretation of facts. In order to, “make it clear that children cannot consent when they have been raped” we have to be clear on when consent can (and cannot) be given, and using unflinching language, 

Importantly, Baroness Casey notes that the aim to “tighten the law” does not intend to encourage the prosecution of teenagers of a similar age engaging in consensual sexual activity, in line with the Crown Prosecution Guidance. The focus will remain on exploitation and coercion, not criminalising teenage children’s relationships where all other elements of consent are present. 

• It is a statutory offence to make, possess or distribute indecent images of children. 

The age of consent is not relevant here. This offence includes images made and distributed by the individual in the image. Importantly, whether or not the possession was intentional is irrelevant, thereby including situations such as an image being sent on a digital platform, such as a group-chat. The purpose of this is to encourage reporting of the offence, which acts as a defence. 

It is also an offence to threaten to share indecent images of any person (child or adult) regardless of whether the material actually exists. This form of intimidation is often used by perpetrators to prevent victims from reporting abuse or seeking support.  

• Rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault without consent, at any age.

There are specific elements to be made out for various offences. However, the key consideration is where consent has not been freely given, it is a crime. Where a person has been “forced to have sex”, they have been raped or assaulted. The difference between sex and a crime is consent.  

Avoidance and adultification

As we prepare for the investigations, we must bear in mind Baroness Casey’s intention to examine the facts in “un-sanitised terms” and acknowledge that language is of crucial importance. An under 18 is not a “young woman” or “young man” but a child. A perpetrator does not “force [someone] to have sex”, they commit rape or assault. 

Often the use of ‘sanitised’ language is a way of avoiding having to fully acknowledge the awful truth of child abuse and exploitation. Casey’s review explores how the meaning embedded in our use of language directly informs our behaviours and decisions, and why this must change.  

However, it also often reflects the adultification of some children, often those who are already vulnerable such as those who are also carers. On 16 June 2025, the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper picked up on the danger of this when she addressed the House of Commons: 

“Baroness Casey is really clear that the “adultification” of children, treating them as consenting to something into which they were coerced and in which they were exploited, lies at the heart of a lot of the institutional failure to take this crime seriously.” 

“Adultification” is where children are treated as older than their chronological age. This is particularly common where teenagers are seen as mature and display behaviours associated with adults. It is widely accepted that this negatively impacts children and may include taking on responsibilities or being subject to expectations that are not appropriate for the age of the child. 

Commonly, this takes the form of “parentification”: where a child undertakes a caregiving role, typically within their household, sometimes providing support to younger siblings or adults. 

Adultification can also take the form of sexualisation, where sexualised expectations or roles are imposed on children. Sexualisation thereby diminishes the seriousness of criminal offences against children by sanitising the facts. The language used underplays the vulnerability of children and can lead to a failing to utilise the legal frameworks designed to protect them. 

The Casey Review invites us to examine how the avoidance of the truth of abuse and exploitation and the adultification of children has led to past failings, and why we must change these approaches now if change is to be achieved. 

The right language

As public sector organisations ready themselves for the possibility of participation in the inquiry, it will be important to set clear language standards to ensure the investigations are effective and reflective, and every organisation with a safeguarding role could usefully do the same. 

First, we must listen to victims, respecting their wishes and acknowledging their bravery. Sensitive use of language which acknowledges, respects and reflects their wishes is important in dealing with them. But the fact a victim has certain views or preferences should not become an excuse for avoiding the truth of crimes perpetrated on them.

We must be unflinching in our acknowledgement of the abuse that has been perpetrated and reflective while unpicking the details of institutional failures. Refreshing our understanding of the relevant legal frameworks will assist.

When it is the public sector organisations’ turn to speak – or more likely write – it is imperative that we get the language right. To do this, it is sensible to conduct ourselves respectfully and with candour, calling out criminality, abuse and exploitation for what it is and avoiding “comfortable” language which can stand in the way of understanding or action.

Asking in relation to every record on abuse and exploitation “how would I feel if this were before the inquiry. Or, more importantly, the victim”, is an effective way of achieving better communications, reflective behaviours and respectful approaches. 

Readying an organisation for an inquiry affecting our sector (whether an organisation is directly involved or not) is a daunting prospect, reflecting on failures and holding ourselves to the highest standards of accountability. Before the process begins let us take a moment to get the language right.