SAFE
CIC
The Safeguarding Specialists
01379 871091

SAFE Newsfeed

Southport Public Inquiry: The Government’s response to phase 1 of the Southport Inquiry.

Source: The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel published on this website Monday 27 July 2026 by Jill Powell

This follows a serious safeguarding incident in July 2024 when 17-year-old AR murdered 3 young girls and injured 10 others in a shocking knife attack at a children’s dance club in Southport.

The Southport Public Inquiry was commissioned in April 2025 to develop a clear understanding of how the attack was able to happen and to identify lessons to minimise the risk of a future tragedy. The Phase 1 report provides a detailed account of the events leading up to the attack and identifies key failures across agencies.

The Southport Inquiry phase 1 report

It highlights five major areas of systemic failure:

  1. Absence of risk ownership: No agency or multi-agency structure accepted responsibility for assessing and managing the grave risk posed by the perpetrator
  2. Critical failures in information sharing: Essential information was repeatedly lost, diluted or poorly managed across agencies
  3. Misunderstanding of autism: AR’s conduct was wrongly attributed to his autism spectrum disorder, leading to inaction and a failure to address dangerous behaviours
  4. Lack of oversight of online activity: AR’s online behaviour, which provided the clearest indications of his violent preoccupations, was never meaningfully examined
  5. Significant parental failures: AR’s parents did not provide boundaries, permitted knives and weapons to be delivered to the home, and failed to report crucial information in the days leading up to the attack

These findings demand careful attention and reflection across the safeguarding system. You can access a summary of the learning from NSPCC below.

Read the NSPCC summary of Phase 1 learning

Phase 2 of the Inquiry will assess the adequacy of multi-agency systems to address the public safety risk posed by young people who display a fixation on and desire to commit acts of extreme violence. In support of the Public Inquiry, we continue to work with Lancashire Safeguarding Partnership to discuss its response to this tragic incident and share the system learning identified in the report.

The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel would expect to offer support and expertise to any safeguarding partnership involved with a relevant public inquiry. This might include giving advice on whether it is sensible to pause an LCSPR while an inquiry takes place or by making introductions to other partnerships who have managed similar situations in the past.

Drawing on learning from the Southport Inquiry, we have published a new briefing paper about managing public inquiries to support multi-agency leaders and practitioners to respond to high-profile incidents with confidence, transparency and a commitment to learning when public concern is at its highest.

Public inquiries and high-profile incidents

A briefing paper to support local safeguarding children partnerships to manage public inquiries for high-profile incidents July 2026

Man jailed after secretly filming women in their homes

Source: Norfolk Police published on this website Friday 24 July 2026 by Jill Powell

A man who secretly filmed women through the windows of their homes has been jailed for more than two and a half years.

Jake Austin, age 31, of Ipswich Road, Norwich was sentenced at Norwich Crown Court, Wednesday 22 July, after previously admitting five counts of voyeurism, three counts of upskirting and three counts of making indecent images of children.

Austin was first arrested in March 2024 when a woman in Norwich reported seeing him on CCTV footage looking through the window of her ground floor bedroom window.  Officers attended and arrested him nearby to the victim’s address and seized his mobile device. When this and other electronic devices were examined, detectives found hours and hours of voyeuristic videos. Some  filmed from the street- showed women getting dressed and undressed in their homes. Others  recorded in supermarkets, pubs and in the street were filmed up women's skirts.

Detectives were able to identify six of the other victims and let them know what had happened, but some women in the videos were never identified.

Further downloads from Austin's computer also showed a number of indecent images of children.

In court he was sentenced to 31 months imprisonment and placed on the sex offenders register for life. He was also issued with a 10-year sexual harm prevention order.

In statements read in court some of Austin's victims described the effect his offending had had on them.

One woman said, "This was a significant violation of my privacy and the comfort I should feel in my own home. This experience has made me much more guarded around strangers"

Another added, "It is a very strange feeling knowing that someone has been watching you without your knowledge. The fact that he decided to film me made me feel even more disturbed". 

And a third said she felt "vulnerable" when she was told she had been secretly filmed.

"When the officer told me, I was still breastfeeding my young daughter and this made me worried about a completely normal act and if strangers might use it for their own personal gain to take photos. It gave me a lot of anxiety."

Following sentencing investigating officer Detective Constable Matthew Hubbard said:

"Austin's offending represented a serious and sustained pattern of predatory behaviour. He deliberately targeted women who were completely unaware they were being filmed and did so both in public and in the privacy of their own homes without their knowledge or consent.

"He violated their privacy and I know that these crimes have had a profound impact on them.

"I would like to thank the women who had the courage to come forward and report these crimes, as well as everyone who supported the investigation. Their courage and bravery has resulted in this outcome.

"We would always encourage anyone who witnesses or experiences this kind of behaviour to report it to the police. Vouyerism and upskirting can sometimes indicate escalating behaviour so reporting it allows us to build intelligence and work to intervene to prevent further harm.”

Non-contact sexual offences can include: Catcalling and harassment, indecent exposure (flashing), voyeurism, upskirting, spiking and stalking. By recognising these behaviours for what they are and reporting them, we can help prevent further harm and make our communities safer for everyone.

House of Commons Research Briefing: Protections for whistleblowing and non-disclosure agreements

Source: UK Parliament published on this website Wednesday 22 July 2026 by Jill Powell

Protections for whistleblowing and non-disclosure agreements

Whistleblowing law

The legal framework for whistleblowing protections is contained in Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. These protections apply across Great Britain, including England, Scotland and Wales. Employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland.

This framework protects workers who disclose information about malpractice at their workplace, or former workplace, provided certain conditions are met. The conditions concern the nature of the information disclosed and the person to whom it is disclosed. If these conditions are met, the act protects the worker from suffering detriment or dismissal due to having made the disclosure. If the conditions are not met a disclosure may constitute a breach of the worker’s duty of confidence to his employer.

These rights are enforceable through the employment tribunal system. The Library publishes a briefing on Making a claim to an employment tribunal.

Non-disclosure agreements

A “non-disclosure agreement” is a confidentiality clause in a contract, typically in a type of contract known as a “settlement agreement”. A settlement agreement is a contract concluded at the end an employment relationship that seeks to prevent future disputes, usually accompanied by a payment to the worker, who waives their entitlement to pursue any legal claims they may have against the employer. A non-disclosure agreement cannot prevent a worker from making a protected disclosure.

Recent reforms under the Employment Rights Act 2025

The Employment Rights Act 2025 made two significant changes regarding whistleblowing protections and the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment:

  • Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 amended section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that information relating to sexual harassment qualifies as a “qualifying disclosure” for the purposes of whistleblowing protections, provided that the information is disclosed by a protected person using the correct legal procedure. Section 23 came into force on 7 April 2026.
  • Section 24 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 inserted a new section into the Employment Rights Act 1996 which voids any provision in an agreement between an employer and a worker (such as a settlement agreement) that prevents the worker from speaking about relevant harassment or discrimination.

Section 24 is not yet in force. The government consulted on how the provisions in section 24 should be implemented between 15 April and 8 July 2026.

Whistleblowing in the NHS

NHS workers can get advice on whistleblowing from the freephone Speak Up Direct Helpline on 08000 724 725 or Speak Up website. They can also speak to their organisation’s Freedom to Speak up Guardian.

Support and advice

The Library briefing Legal advice and help in employment matters provides information on appropriate sources of professional legal advice relevant to whistleblowing law.

Protect

Protect is a charity which offers legal advice about whistleblowing. Protect has guidance on whistleblowing law for both workers and employers.

Protect also operates a confidential advice line, supervised by lawyers, which provides free advice on whistleblowing law and how best to raise whistleblowing concerns.

Acas

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) has a series of guidance pages on whistleblowing at work, including guidance for workers on how to make a whistleblowing disclosure and for employers on responding to a whistleblowing disclosure and having a whistleblowing policy.

Acas also operates a confidential helpline of free advice on all aspects of employment law, including whistleblowing.

Charity Commission offers interim update on provisions of EHRC’s code that clarify the law on matters of sex and gender

Source: Charity Commission published on this website Thursday 23 July 2026 by Jill Powell

The EHRC Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations will soon come into force, and have legal status, including for charities.

Charities are therefore advised to take steps towards ensuring they can comply with the Code and the law, notably the changes regarding the definition of sex under the Equality Act 2010 as relating to biological sex. Such steps might, depending on the nature of a charity’s work, include seeking legal advice. Meanwhile the Charity Commission is working at pace to update its Equality Act guidance for charities. It aims to publish this guidance during the Autumn.  

The guidance will provide further support to charities in understanding how the Equality Act, and the Code, affect them as charities.  For example, it will set out how the charities’ exception can apply to charities, and how charities might take positive action under the Act.

But charities need to be aware that our guidance will not alter the legal principle set out by the April 2025 Supreme Court judgment, For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers,  that ‘sex’ for the purpose of the Equality Act means ‘biological sex’. 

Charities do not need to wait for the Commission’s guidance to comply with the Act and the Code. It is the responsibility of trustees to ensure their charity is compliant with the Code, once it is legally enforceable, and unreasonable delays in taking steps towards compliance may be considered a breach of those responsibilities.

Stronger asbestos controls needed to keep kids safe.

Source: Office for Products, Safety and Standards published on this website Tuesday 21 July 2026 by Jill Powell

Government has told businesses they must not rely on final product testing alone to assure the absence of asbestos in toys. 

Following a growing number of product recalls due to asbestos contamination, the Government is reminding businesses that they must be able to demonstrate that toys containing sand are safe before they are placed on the UK market.  

Businesses should have robust supply chain assurance in place to demonstrate that products are free from asbestos contamination. Product testing may form part of that assurance, but testing alone is not sufficient.  

They should therefore review their supply chains, take any necessary action to address risks, and maintain evidence demonstrating that products are safe and free from asbestos contamination. 

OPSS Chief Executive, Graham Russell said:  

“Parents should be able to trust that the toys they buy for their children are safe. We know the recent recalls have caused concern, and that’s why we’re reminding businesses of their responsibility to understand and manage the risks in their supply chains.

“The Government will hold businesses to account for ensuring they have the right checks and controls in place and can demonstrate that the products they sell are safe.”

Where asbestos is identified in products, businesses should take immediate action to protect consumers, including product withdrawal or recall. 

Consumers can find out more information about products that have been recalled and access advice here: Asbestos in consumer products - GOV.UK 

Businesses can read the advisory note on Assuring the absence of asbestos in sand-containing toys.