Sammy’s Law

Sammy's Law: Grooming Victims' Convictions to Be Reviewed

For years, survivor and campaigner Sammy Woodhouse has argued that children exploited by grooming gangs should not carry criminal records for offences connected with their abuse.

Woodhouse was groomed and sexually abused as a teenager in Rotherham. During that period, she says she was coerced into criminal behaviour and later left with convictions that continued to affect her adult life.

Her campaign, commonly known as "Sammy's Law", called for victims of child sexual exploitation to have convictions connected with their abuse reviewed, removed or pardoned.

That campaign has now resulted in substantial changes, although the current reforms do not automatically erase every conviction arising from exploitation.

Children Treated as Offenders Instead of Victims

Children affected by sexual exploitation were historically described and treated as if they had chosen prostitution or criminal activity.

Some received:

• police cautions;


• criminal convictions;


• public order or assault convictions;


• prostitution-related convictions;


• drug or theft convictions; or


• other records arising from conduct connected with exploitation.

In many cases, the child's behaviour was affected by:

• violence or threats;


• sexual abuse;


• coercive control;


• drug or alcohol dependency;


• fear for relatives;


• financial exploitation;


• grooming by an older adult; or


• a failure by authorities to recognise the child as a victim.

A criminal record can continue to affect a survivor long after the abuse has ended.

The Effect of a Criminal Record

Depending on the offence, sentence and type of work involved, a conviction may affect:

• employment applications;


• Disclosure and Barring Service checks;


• professional registration;


• voluntary work;


• education and training;


• insurance;


• housing;


• travel; and


• applications involving children or vulnerable adults.

Some convictions eventually become spent under rehabilitation legislation, meaning they do not normally need to be disclosed for most purposes.

However, spent convictions may still be disclosed for certain exempt occupations and enhanced DBS checks unless they are protected, filtered, quashed or formally disregarded.

For survivors, repeatedly explaining conduct committed while they were being abused can cause further distress and make it more difficult to rebuild their lives.

What Has Changed?

Following Baroness Casey's National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, the Government accepted that some victims had been criminalised when they should have been protected.

The Government accepted a recommendation to:

• review convictions involving victims of child sexual exploitation;


• disregard qualifying convictions where children were treated as prostitutes;


• expunge those records; and


• identify wider cases in which exploitation was not properly understood.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced the legal framework for disregarding qualifying historic convictions involving children who were criminalised for prostitution-related offences.

What Does a Disregard Mean?

Where a qualifying conviction or caution is formally disregarded, the person is generally treated for legal purposes as though they had not committed, been charged with, prosecuted for or convicted of that offence.

The effect may include:

• removing the relevant record from disclosure;


• ending the ordinary obligation to disclose it;


• preventing it from appearing on qualifying criminal record checks;


• reducing barriers to employment and volunteering; and


• formally recognising that the child should have been protected rather than prosecuted.

The detailed application process and eligibility requirements must be followed. Not every offence connected with exploitation is automatically covered by the statutory disregard scheme.

Is This the Full Sammy's Law?

Not entirely.

The current disregard scheme is an important reform, but it principally addresses historic prostitution-related offences committed by children.

Sammy Woodhouse's wider campaign concerns all convictions where a child was coerced, controlled or exploited into criminal conduct.

Examples might include:

• assault;


• theft or robbery;


• drug offences;


• public order offences;


• carrying weapons;


• criminal damage; or


• offences committed under threats from an abuser.

These wider convictions are not automatically removed merely because the person was a victim of child sexual exploitation.

They may require an individual review, appeal or referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission

The Criminal Cases Review Commission investigates possible miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It can examine whether a conviction may be unsafe because the court, prosecution or defence did not properly understand evidence of:

• grooming;


• sexual exploitation;


• coercion;


• duress;


• trafficking;


• modern slavery;


• the defendant’s age or vulnerability; or


• failures by police or safeguarding agencies.

If the Commission considers that there is a real possibility that the conviction or sentence would not be upheld, it can refer the case to an appeal court.

The appeal court, rather than the Government or the Commission, decides whether the conviction should be quashed.

First Cases Referred Back to the Courts

In May 2026, the Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that it had referred its first grooming-gang-related case back to the courts following the Casey review.

The Commission has confirmed that it is actively investigating cases in which victims of child sexual exploitation may have been treated as offenders rather than protected as children.

This is an important development, but each case will depend on its own evidence and legal history.

Coercion, Duress and Exploitation

English criminal law has long recognised certain defences involving duress, but the rules are narrow.

A person will not automatically have a defence merely because they were:

• in an abusive relationship;


• afraid of another person;


• under emotional pressure;


• dependent on an abuser; or


• influenced by grooming.

The court may need to consider:

• the nature and immediacy of any threat;


• whether the person reasonably believed the threat would be carried out;


• whether there was a safe opportunity to escape;


• the person’s age and vulnerability;


• the length and nature of the exploitation;


• evidence of violence and coercive control; and


• whether the offence was committed because of trafficking or exploitation.

Modern understanding of grooming may reveal that children who appeared to cooperate were, in reality, being controlled by adults who had deliberately created fear, dependency and isolation.

Child Criminal Exploitation

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 also created a specific offence of child criminal exploitation.

The offence targets adults who intentionally cause a child to commit criminal offences.

This recognises that children used for criminal purposes should be viewed as potential victims of exploitation, rather than automatically treated as willing participants.

Child criminal exploitation can include:

• county lines drug activity;


• carrying weapons;


• theft and robbery;


• fraud;


• violence;


• holding money or property;


• transporting drugs or other items; and


• criminal activity connected with sexual exploitation.

Why the Reform Matters

A child cannot give meaningful consent to their own sexual exploitation.

Where an adult grooms, threatens or controls a child, criminal conduct committed by that child may be part of the abuse itself.

Leaving those convictions unexamined can:

• punish the victim rather than the abuser;


• discourage victims from reporting exploitation;


• damage future employment and education;


• reinforce shame and self-blame;


• undermine confidence in the justice system; and


• continue the effects of the abuse into adult life.

Reviewing such convictions does not mean that every offence committed by a person who experienced abuse must automatically be erased.

It means that the justice system should properly examine whether the individual was a child being exploited, whether coercion affected their conduct and whether the conviction remains safe and just.

What Should a Survivor Do?

A person who believes that a caution or conviction arose from child sexual or criminal exploitation should obtain specialist legal advice.

Useful information may include:

• the date and court of conviction;


• the offence and sentence;


• police records;


• social services records;


• school or care records;


• medical records;


• evidence concerning the abuser;


• later convictions of the perpetrator;


• reports into local authority or police failures;


• witness evidence; and


• documents showing the person's age and circumstances.

Records may be incomplete or difficult to obtain, particularly in historic cases. A solicitor can advise on disclosure requests and alternative sources of evidence.

Possible Legal Routes

Depending on the conviction, possible routes may include:

• an application under the statutory disregard scheme;


• an appeal against conviction;


• an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission;


• an application concerning disclosure or filtering;


• correction of inaccurate police information;


• advice about spent convictions;


• a data protection challenge; or


• a complaint about the handling of the original case.

The correct route will depend on the offence, the date, the court involved and whether the conviction has already been appealed.

Disclosure to Employers

Not every conviction must be disclosed indefinitely.

Whether disclosure is required depends on:

• whether the conviction is spent;


• the sentence imposed;


• the type of job or role;


• whether the role is exempt from rehabilitation rules;


• whether the conviction is protected from disclosure;


• the level of DBS check; and


• whether police information is considered relevant to an enhanced check.

A person should not assume that they must disclose every historic offence on every application.

However, giving inaccurate information where disclosure is lawfully required can create further difficulties. Advice should be obtained where the position is unclear.

How a Solicitor Can Help

A solicitor experienced in criminal appeals, child exploitation or criminal record disclosure may assist with:

• obtaining details of historic convictions;


• assessing eligibility for a disregard;


• preparing an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission;


• appealing a conviction or sentence;


• obtaining police, court and safeguarding records;


• presenting evidence of coercion and exploitation;


• advising on DBS disclosure;


• challenging inaccurate criminal record information;


• employment disclosure questions; and


• compensation or public law issues arising from official failures.

A Long-Overdue Recognition

Sammy Woodhouse's campaign helped expose an injustice that continued long after the original abuse.

The new disregard scheme acknowledges that children criminalised for prostitution-related offences were victims who should have been safeguarded.

The wider work is not complete. Survivors convicted of assault, theft, drugs or other offences connected with grooming may still need individual reviews and court decisions.

The principle behind Sammy’s Law remains clear: where a child was coerced into offending as part of their exploitation, the justice system should examine the conviction through the eyes of what the child was—a victim in need of protection, not simply an offender.

Finding a Solicitor

Use the search facility at the top of this page to find a solicitor experienced in criminal appeals, child sexual exploitation, criminal records or Disclosure and Barring Service matters.

This article provides general information about the law in England and Wales. It does not constitute legal advice and should not replace advice about an individual conviction, caution or disclosure decision.