Lowe Inquiry gave grooming gangs survivors a voice, but leaves four accountability gaps for the next inquiry to close

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Think Tank: Lowe Inquiry gave grooming gangs survivors a voice, but leaves four accountability gaps for the next inquiry to close

LONDON, 2nd September 2026 — Trafalgar Analytics' Law & Justice Team has today published a policy paper assessing the outcomes of the Lowe Inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal. The independently-run and privately-funded Lowe Inquiry published its final report on 16 June 2026.

The paper concludes that while the inquiry succeeded in giving survivors a platform many had been denied elsewhere, it leaves four issues unaddressed that any future inquiry or parliamentary commission should confront head-on.

What Went Well?

The Lowe Report platformed survivor testimony that had gone unheard elsewhere, and its recommendations, including a victim-centred criminal justice response, aggravated sentencing for grooming gang offences, and a dedicated CPS unit. It set a credible starting point for future legislative action, the paper finds.

"The Lowe Inquiry did something that established and state institutions failed to do for decades, by letting survivors speak and be believed," said Lewis Appleby, paper co-author and Associate at Trafalgar Analytics. "The victims' testimonies and hearings were a powerful and moving step for victims. However, in terms of execution, the timing of the report launch (two days before a by-election) dampened its impact on the news cycle."

What Didn't?

The paper identifies three near-term issues for the Lowe Inquiry itself: (1) a lack of individual sourcing for the 149 locations listed in its appendix, raising the risk of circular reporting; (2) imprecise terminology around the offender profile, with the paper recommending "Asian-Muslim" as a more accurate descriptor than "Muslim Pakistani"; and (3) the timing of the report's launch, which was overshadowed by the Makerfield by-election and its aftermath.

Four Missed Opportunities for the Next Inquiry

The paper also identifies four issues neither the Lowe Inquiry nor the Government's own Casey Audit addressed in depth, which it argues future commissions must pursue:

1. The Jay Inquiry's 2022 final report, which Trafalgar Analytics' own review found contained 14 of 20 recommendations that were not satisfactory in tackling the scandal.

2. The role of academia, including the influence of Dr Ella Cockbain's research in downplaying the offender profile for over a decade.

3. The Home Office's 2020 report under then-Home Secretary Priti Patel, which claimed offenders were "majority white". This claim was later rejected by the 2025 Casey Audit.

4. The role of the BBC and Channel 4, which broadcast programmes challenging survivor Eleanor Williams's credibility, including repeat airings after other men she named were separately convicted of child abuse offences.

"I don't think the stakes could be any higher than they are, and we need to rise to meet them," said Adam Wren, Director of the Centre for Justice Policy, reflecting on the wider inquiry landscape. "We need a lot more rigour."

Additional Information

The full policy paper, "Lessons from the Lowe Inquiry: What went well, and what is next?" is available here.

Media Contact

Sarah Moore (Senior Communications Officer), Trafalgar Analytics

media@trafalgaranalytics.co.uk

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS

• The authors of the policy paper, Rebecca Hurst, Lewis Appleby, and James Fairbank are Associates in the Law & Justice Team, at Trafalgar Analytics.

• "Lessons from the Lowe Inquiry: What went well, and what is next?" is available here.

• For more information or interview requests, please contact Sarah Moore on media@trafalgaranalytics.co.uk.

• Trafalgar Analytics is a British data analytics and research centre. Its work sits at the intersection between data science, economics, and political science. It believes in a data driven approach for tackling the foremost societal, economic, and political challenges of our time.