Source: Metropolitan Police published on this website Thursday 2 July 2026 by Jill Powell

Investigators have appealed for other potential victim-survivors to come forward

A former foster carer from Walthamstow has been sentenced to 31 years in prison, having been convicted in May of numerous non-recent sexual offences against children. The conviction came after an extensive Met investigation, with specialist officers supporting the brave victim-survivors who reported him.

Bradley Dilsworth, 69 of Phoenix Close, Walthamstow, was convicted of 22 counts of child sex offending on Thursday, 21 May at Snaresbrook Crown Court. His convictions relate to offences committed against five victims, one of whom was as young as seven at the time.

Bradley Dilsworth’s offending spanned over several years between 2002 and 2009, during which those he preyed on were aged between seven and 16. Evidence presented in court showed that he repeatedly exploited his position as a trusted adult within the Walthamstow community, presenting himself as a friendly and approachable neighbour.

The court heard that Dilsworth would invite children into his home after school, allowing them to smoke and drink alcohol. This environment was deliberately used to lower their inhibitions and create opportunities for abuse.

One stand-out aspect of the case involved Dilsworth’s manipulation of one victim, who believed she was in a genuine relationship with him. She was just 13 when she met Dilsworth and it was only when she was much older that she came to understand she had been a victim.

Another offence was committed against a girl aged just seven who was staying at Dilsworth’s house with her parents at the time.

As part of his defence, Dilsworth claimed that the children who spent time at his home were visiting his son, who was of a similar age to them. However, this explanation was rejected by the jury, who found the evidence demonstrated a clear pattern of grooming and abuse.

Prior to his offending Dilsworth was a registered foster carer and is known to have fostered two children during the 1980s.

Detective Inspector James Rush, who led the investigation, said:

“I would like to thank the victims in this case for the immense courage they have shown in coming forward to report the abuse they suffered.

“Undetected for years, Dilsworth was able to abuse children in what my team uncovered to be a hellish afterschool club, lulling young people into a false sense of security and exploiting their trust. For the victim-survivors, speaking about their experiences many years later is incredibly difficult, and their bravery has been crucial in securing this long sentence today.

“I hope this outcome provides some comfort to anyone affected by sexual abuse and sends a clear message that the Met will continue to pursue offenders and seek justice, no matter how long ago abuse occurred.”

Met detectives launched an investigation after a victim bravely came forward to police to tell their story in November 2023.

After conducting in-depth interviews with this victim and others, officers first arrested Dilsworth in November 2024. He was charged with a long list of non-recent sexual offences in April 2025 after investigators worked tirelessly to build a case against him. When arrested, Dilsworth was still living in the same house where his offending had taken place.

As the investigation progressed, detectives traced two further victims who hadn’t come forward previously. These victims made further reports and Dilsworth was ultimately charged with offences against them too.

As part of their investigation, detectives searched Dilsworth’s home in Walthamstow and uncovered an “Aladdin’s cave” of electrical devices. Over 100 digital exhibits were seized, including hard drives, discs and USB devices. Internal CCTV footage from cameras positioned around the house was also recovered. These devices revealed years of offending, with devices showing indecent images of one of the victims. During interviews with police, victims provided detailed floor plans of the property that closely matched the layout of the house, further corroborating their accounts.

To protect the integrity of ongoing legal proceedings after Bradley Dilsworth was first charged with offences, detectives have not been able to publicly appeal for further potential victim-survivors until now.

The Metropolitan Police Service is now asking anyone who thinks they may have been a victim of Dilsworth to come forward and speak with police.

Specialist officers work closely with victim-survivors to seek justice and are available to offer support and signpost to external partners, so they can get help.

Officers are keeping an open mind about the identities of unidentified victim-survivors, but are particularly keen to hear from women who attended school in Walthamstow or recognise Dilsworth from his days as a foster carer, builder or lorry driver.

Victim-survivors may have visited Dilsworth at his house on Phoenix Close, Walthamstow, or prior addresses in Grove Green Road, Leyton, Bulwer Court Road, Leytonstone, or Roberts Road, Walthamstow.

Detective Inspector James Rush added: 

“We are determined to support all victim-survivors and are now asking anyone who believes they may have concerns about Dilsworth to please come forward. I want to reassure anyone impacted that you are not alone and can seek specialist support and guidance, not only from the police, but also from independent charities and services.”

Anyone with information or looking to report a potential crime is asked to contact the Metropolitan Police on 101, quoting CAD 5076/25JUN26. Those who wish to remain anonymous can contact Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

Source: Home Office published on this website Tuesday 30 2026 by Jill Powell

This circular is issued to inform partners of certain provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 which came into force on 29 June 2026.

In this circular’s introduction it says:

1. “This circular is issued to inform the police and other relevant public authorities, of certain provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (“the Act”), which come into force on 29 June 2026. This circular does not constitute legal advice. It is not a statement of law and is not intended to provide a comprehensive description or interpretation of the provisions. The circular should be read alongside the Act and the accompanying explanatory notes, which can be found here: Crime and Policing Act 2026.

2. “Unless otherwise indicated, the provisions discussed in this circular extend to England and Wales only.”

Source: Department for Education published on this website on Wednesday 1 July 2026 by Jill Powell

This statutory guidance is for:

• headteachers
• managers
• local authorities

It applies to:

• local-authority-maintained schools
• sixth-form colleges
• further education colleges

It relates to the following legislation:

• Crime and Policing Act 2026
• Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, amended by Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
• Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, Schedule 2, paragraph 5A

The Guidance is for schools, colleges and childcare settings to understand what they need to do to comply with the change to regulated activity that will come into force on 1 September 2026. This is due to changes made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

The Act changes the definition of regulated activity by removing the supervision exemption. Under that exemption, unpaid activities such as teaching, training, instructing, or caring for or supervising children were not classed as regulated activity if supervised by someone who was in regulated activity (for example, a class teacher).

This means that all such activity is now considered to be regulated activity if it is carried out frequently, or if it meets the period condition. The period condition means:

• on more than 3 days in a 30-day period
• overnight

All volunteers engaging in regulated activity will need to have an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check with children’s barred list information.

This change will come into force on 1 September 2026.

Source: Department for Health and Social Care published on this website June 29 2026 by Jill Powell

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has published this update as a result of the Supreme Court judgment on 2 June 2026. These changes to the definition of deprivation of liberty apply with immediate effect and extend across the UK.

This update is for:

• health and social care staff
• anyone who cares for an individual who lacks capacity to consent to their care and residence where there is or may be a deprivation of liberty
• staff with responsibility for organisational policies, procedures and internal or external facing documents relating to deprivation of liberty safeguards

Between 20 and 22 October 2025, the UK Supreme Court heard a case brought by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland concerning the definition of a deprivation of liberty. 

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on 2 June 2026 and concluded that:

• the Cheshire West 2014 judgment was incorrect
• instead of relying on the single ‘acid test’, an assessment of whether someone is deprived of their liberty must now consider multiple factors - that is, it is multifactorial
• the starting point in assessing whether someone is deprived of liberty is to look at the specific situation of the individual and take into account the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of restrictions on the person - crucially, no single factor is determinative
• the Cheshire West 2014 judgment wrongly assumed that if someone lacks legal capacity under the MCA 2005, they cannot give valid consent to the arrangements. The 2026 judgment clarifies that a person’s expression of their wishes and feelings carries significant weight. A person can give valid consent if they are conscious of their environment, have a basic level of understanding and are capable of expressing a view that they accept and/or are happy with the situation. However, if there is serious doubt, no conclusion of valid consent can be drawn
• the effect of the restrictions on the person may differ based on whether or not the person is content with their arrangements - Cheshire West 2014 was wrong to conclude that a person’s lack of objection is never legally relevant to the question of objective confinement

These changes to the definition of a deprivation of liberty apply with immediate effect and extend across the UK.