Maximising the Impact of the New Child Criminal Exploitation Offence

Insights Perspective

---

Tara de Klerk, Analyst

Tuesday 1 April 2025

Last month, the government introduced a standalone offence of Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE) in its Crime and Policing Bill, alongside Child Criminal Exploitation Civil Preventative Orders that can be used in court to impose restrictions for individuals charged with CCE offences, such as restricting movements or requiring them to participate in specific programmes. 

Crest recently hosted a roundtable discussion to explore the impact and application of the new offence. This blog outlines the key topics discussed and the questions that the government should answer before the bill is passed and guidance is developed.

Q1: How will the new offence sit alongside and improve the existing framework used to tackle CCE? 

The current legislative framework for tackling child criminal exploitation is insufficient, leaving many children without adequate support and at risk of being criminalised. While the Modern Slavery Act 2015 can be used to identify victims and offenders of CCE, it does not directly reference CCE, instead taking a broad approach which obscures the specific nature of child criminal exploitation. The focus on human trafficking has also resulted in certain situations like "cuckooing", where exploitation occurs at fixed locations, being overlooked.

The National Referral Mechanism (NRM), tied to modern slavery legislation, is often the default response to potential cases of CCE. In 2023, 7,432 children were referred to the NRM, of which 42% were for reasons related to CCE. Crucially, however, the NRM does not guarantee enhanced protection for young victims.  Crest research highlights the challenges of using the NRM for child exploitation as well as the inconsistent approach to child protection across local authorities. 

Beyond the NRM, court orders, such as injunctions and Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders (STROs), are available. However, while valuable as additional tools, they cannot compensate for the need for a whole-system approach that coordinates criminal justice responses with appropriate safeguarding measures for children.

Stakeholders in our roundtable welcomed the new offence as a potential means to clarify and enhance the criminal justice response to CCE. However, they emphasised that the mere existence of the offence does not guarantee an improved response. Clear guidance is essential to explain how the new offence fits within the wider legislative toolkit and can be used to safeguard children and young people from exploitation and prosecute perpetrators of abuse.

Child criminal exploitation does not occur in isolation. Children often experience multiple overlapping forms of exploitation, such as sexual exploitation and county lines. To ensure that the new offence does not lose sight of this interconnectivity and result in fragmented working, the new guidance should clearly outline the different pathways available to practitioners and judicial professionals to safeguard children effectively. 

Q2: How will the new offence balance the safeguarding of victims with the prosecution of perpetrators?

The new offence targets adults (defined as those aged over 18) who groom and exploit children to carry out any criminal activity, such as county lines. This age threshold for prosecuting exploiters seeks to address the ‘imbalance of power’ inherent to child criminal exploitation. 

However, participants reflected on the complex delineation between victim and offenders, noting that age in itself does not separate one from the other. Research shows that younger children are increasingly taking on criminal responsibilities, with some groomed to exploit others by the age of 15.’ This is further complicated by the fact that the exploitation-to-exploiting pathway is not linear - many individuals exhibit both victim and offender characteristics.

One concern among participants was that limiting victims to those under 18 could exacerbate support gaps for those transitioning into adulthood and fail to recognise ongoing exploitation. It could also inadvertently push victim control and offending onto younger and more vulnerable populations due to their perceived immunity from prosecution. In our previous research, we found that senior gang members were quick to change their tactics and distance themselves from ‘on the ground’ operations to evade prosecution. A heightened focus on age alone could bolster existing victim stereotypes and exacerbate ‘adultification’ bias - where Black children are perceived and treated as being older and more mature than they are. 

The approach to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) could provide a useful template for how to embed nuance when identifying victims. The CSA legislation provides varied protection based on a child’s age and encourages a contextual assessment of each case, accounting for broader vulnerability. Participants also recognised the continued value of Modern Slavery legislation to support cases where there is an overlap between those who are exploited and are involved in exploiting others. However, they agreed that the Bill or its accompanying guidance should explicitly acknowledge this victim/ perpetrator duality. 

Q3: How will the government ensure the effective implementation of the new offence and guidance?

Participants identified inconsistencies in how exploitation is recognised and addressed, leading to a postcode lottery of protection for children. The new offence provides an opportunity for all agencies to be involved in the development of a new approach to CCE from the start. However, real change requires a fundamental shift in organisational cultures and behaviours. Participants agreed that systematic multi-agency training across the criminal justice system is essential to establish a shared understanding of CCE responses.  Embedding all voices, particularly those with lived experience, into the new guidance is essential to develop effective practices that move beyond traditional siloes. This includes explicitly recognising families as crucial partners whose involvement is vital for combatting child criminal exploitation. Education providers were also specifically referenced as requiring a stronger understanding of exploitation risk factors. 

To facilitate partnership working, attendees emphasised the need for a clear and uniform understanding of success. Historically, government-set performance metrics have prioritised an effective law enforcement response, somewhat at the expense of safeguarding vulnerable individuals. Participants hoped that key performance indicators would strike a balance between both safeguarding and enforcement and could be used to hold agencies accountable.

Participants agreed on the need for a robust data system, able to support an evidence-led approach to identifying CCE that relies less on victim statements. Participants stressed the need for arrangements to share relevant data across institutional and geographic boundaries. Examples of successful partnership working, such as co-locating local authorities with police, were highlighted. Expanding the list of NRM First Responders to include specialised CCE services within the voluntary sector and allowing frontline practitioners greater input at MACE meetings were also suggested. 

Conclusion

Focusing on CCE is a crucial step forward, but legislation alone is not enough to protect vulnerable children. To create real change, we call on the Home Office to provide robust, well-informed guidance that accounts for the complexities of CCE. Additionally, tackling the root causes of exploitation is essential. Strengthening preventative efforts—such as improving housing, education, and integrating initiatives like Young Futures hubs and knife reduction strategies—will help reduce the number of children at risk. Only through this multi-layered approach can we truly safeguard children from exploitation and prosecute perpetrators of abuse.