Introduction
The Hillsborough disaster of 1989, in which 97 Liverpool football fans lost their lives, remains one of the darkest chapters in British public life. Yet, the tragedy was compounded by the decades-long struggle of bereaved families to uncover the truth, challenge institutional cover-ups, and secure justice. The campaign for a “Hillsborough Law” is rooted in the lessons of this struggle, demanding a legal framework that enshrines transparency, candour, and parity of arms for victims and families facing the state. The proposed Public Office (Accountability) Bill, often referred to as the “Hillsborough Law”, seeks to deliver on these demands by introducing a statutory Duty of Candour, reforming misconduct in public office, and ensuring fairer legal processes for bereaved families.
The Duty of Candour: Truth as a legal obligation
At the heart of the Hillsborough Law is the statutory Duty of Candour. This duty compels public authorities and officials to act with candour, transparency, and frankness in all dealings with inquiries, inquests, and investigations. The Bill establishes clear legal obligations for public bodies and their staff to proactively provide information and evidence, not merely when compelled, but as a matter of course and without favouring their own position.
This duty is not limited to statutory inquiries but extends to non-statutory inquiries, coroner’s investigations, and can be broadened further by secondary legislation. Failure to comply with the Duty of Candour is a criminal offence, carrying sanctions including imprisonment.
Importantly, the Bill also extends the duty to non-public authorities who provide public services under contract to public authorities. This captures all companies and organisations undertaking ‘public sector work’ and represents a potentially significant extension of the duty into the ‘private sector’. It also extends to private bodies holding relevant health and safety responsibilities. It is evident that this extension is designed to capture those organisations in the private sector who have an impact on scandals such as the Post Office and Horizon.
The Bill also mandates that all public bodies must embed a professional duty of candour within their codes of ethics, based on the Nolan Principles of honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness, and leadership. Staff who breach this duty face disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal for gross misconduct. Again, we can see how the civil service code is being uprated and given a statutory footing.
Misleading the public: Criminalising cover-ups
The Hillsborough disaster was marked not only by tragedy but by a subsequent campaign of misinformation and cover-up by public authorities. The Bill introduces a new criminal offence for public officials or authorities who intentionally or recklessly mislead the public, knowing their actions are seriously improper. This offence is tightly defined to capture only the most egregious conduct—significant or repeated dishonesty, causing or risking harm, and a serious departure from expected standards.
For example, if a police force knowingly issues a false public statement about a major incident, or a hospital executive instructs staff to lie to the press, such actions would be prosecutable under this new offence. The aim is to ensure that the lessons of Hillsborough—where false narratives were propagated to deflect blame—are never repeated.
Reforming misconduct in public office
The Bill also addresses longstanding criticisms of the common law offence of misconduct in public office, which has been criticised for its lack of clarity and inconsistent application. The new statutory framework replaces the common law offence with two new offences: “seriously improper acts” and “breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury”.
“Seriously Improper Acts” targets public office holders who use their position to obtain a benefit or cause detriment, knowing their behaviour is seriously improper. It covers a wide range of misconduct, including actions taken to protect reputations, as seen in the aftermath of Hillsborough. Breach of Duty to Prevent Death or Serious Injury applies to public office holders with a duty to prevent harm (e.g., police, fire, or medical personnel) who intentionally or recklessly breach that duty, causing or risking critical harm. Both offences are indictable and carry significant custodial sentences, reflecting the gravity of such misconduct.
Parity of arms: Levelling the legal playing field
A core injustice exposed by the Hillsborough inquests was the stark imbalance between bereaved families and public authorities. While public bodies could deploy multiple legal teams at public expense, families often faced the process alone, without legal representation. The Bill addresses this by expanding legal aid for bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is an interested party.
Legal aid will be non-means tested, ensuring that families can access both legal help and advocacy regardless of their financial situation. The Bill also simplifies the process for obtaining legal aid, removing the need for families to navigate complex exceptional case funding procedures. This reform is designed to ensure that families can participate fully and effectively in inquests and inquiries, and that the process remains inquisitorial rather than adversarial.
Changing the culture: Ethical conduct and oversight
The Bill goes beyond legal reform to drive cultural change within public institutions. It requires public authorities to promote ethical conduct, with clear codes of ethics and internal processes for raising concerns and complaints. The conduct of public authorities and their legal teams at inquests and inquiries will be subject to new statutory guidance, with mechanisms for raising concerns about behaviour and ensuring that the inquisitorial nature of proceedings is preserved.
Conclusion: Towards justice and accountability
The Hillsborough Law, as embodied in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, represents a landmark in the pursuit of justice and accountability in public life. By enshrining the Duty of Candour, criminalising cover-ups, reforming misconduct offences, and ensuring parity of arms for bereaved families, the Bill seeks to ensure that the failings exposed by Hillsborough—and repeated in other scandals—are never repeated.
The law’s significance extends beyond the specifics of Hillsborough. It is a statement of principle: that public authorities exist to serve the public, not to protect themselves at the expense of truth and justice. The Duty of Candour is not merely a legal requirement, but a moral imperative—one that honours the memory of those lost at Hillsborough and affirms the right of all citizens to truth, accountability, and justice.
If you require any further information please contact our expert.
