The Hillsborough Law Bill, Part 1: An Overview of…

In a recent Landmark Chambers webinar, Fiona Scolding KC, Chris Jacobs, Natasha Jackson and Claudia Hyde provided an overview of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, a significant piece of legislation which proposes to introduce a new duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness, as well as wide-ranging enforcement mechanisms.

Background to the Hillsborough Law Bill

There are few events in recent UK history that have left as sharp an imprint on the public consciousness as the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989. The deadliest disaster in British sporting history, the tragic events of 15 April resulted in 97 fatalities and 766 injuries. Yet it is only in 2026, and following myriad reviews, reports and investigations, that the seismic legislative shift known as the ‘Hillsborough Law’ looks likely to enter the statute books.

The procedural response to the Hillsborough disaster was chequered, to put it mildly. While initial inquests took place in 1990-1991, it was not until a second inquest, concluding in 2016, that it was determined that fans did not contribute to the disaster and were unlawfully killed. In the meantime, the events were also considered by the Taylor Review; an investigation by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith; the Hillsborough Independent Panel; a series of civil claims; and criminal investigations.

A consistent theme running through these processes was criticism of how the public bodies in question – and in particular, those who stood to face criticism – engaged, both with those processes themselves and their eventual outputs. This was crystallised in the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, in which the Right Reverend James Jones challenged, in no uncertain terms, the “instinctive prioritisation of the reputation of an organisation over the citizen’s right to expect people to be held to account for their actions.”

It is against that backdrop that the Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto committed itself to a Hillsborough Law.

Statutory Footing for the Duty of Candour

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill was introduced in September 2025, and, at the time of writing this article, is currently at the Report Stage. Central to the Bill is the new statutory duty of candour and assistance, contained in clause 2(1):

“Public authorities and public officials must at all times act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations.”

This builds upon the existing and well-understood duty of candour in the context of judicial review, which requires public bodies to put all relevant material before the court and, therefore, before the other parties. This has been encapsulated as an obligation to conduct judicial review “with all cards face upwards on the table”: R v Lancashire CC, ex p Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 94.

Clause 2, however, goes further. Rather than introducing a mere target duty, the Bill incorporates a series of enforcement mechanisms designed to give the duty of candour “teeth”, including potential criminal consequences for breach. It is intended to represent a sea change.

Clause 2 has both reactive and proactive elements. Clauses 2(3)-(4) build upon existing duties towards investigations by requiring initiative on the part of public bodies:

“(3) A public authority or public official must notify the person leading an inquiry or investigation where the authority or official has grounds to believe that—

(a) their acts are or may be relevant to the inquiry or investigation, or

(b) they otherwise have information likely to be relevant to the inquiry or investigation.

(4) A public authority or public official must provide all such assistance as they can reasonably give to assist an inquiry or investigation to meet its objectives, and (in particular) must—

(a) where the authority or official has information that is likely to be relevant to the inquiry or investigation, provide that information;

(b) where any such information is likely to be of particular significance to the inquiry or investigation, draw attention to that fact;

(d) in the case of a public authority, provide a position statement;

(e) where requested by the person leading the inquiry or investigation, provide further information or clarification or comply with other requirements, so far as reasonably practicable.”

Thus, the duty of candour and assistance is not merely a duty to respond to questions when asked. It is a duty to offer information, on an ongoing basis, and even where disadvantageous, so as to “provide all such assistance as they can reasonably give”. This marks a break from the traditional (and, historically, more reactive) nature of public body engagement with such investigations. In the context of statutory public inquiries, for instance, the well-trodden path is for a public body to respond to a request for evidence under Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules, once the Inquiry in question has identified the issues that merit further investigation. The statutory duty of candour and assistance represents a significant shift in this dynamic.

Clause 2(5) further confirms that this duty does not stop at the organisational level, adding that “where a public authority is subject to the obligations in subsection (3) or (4), the public official who is in charge of the authority must take all reasonable steps to secure that the authority complies with those obligations.” That places accountability for discharging the statutory duty squarely on the leadership of the organisation, which, as confirmed by clause 2(6), must discharge its duty of candour “expeditiously” and “without favour to their own, or another person’s, position”.

Scope of the Bill

Clause 8 of the Bill sets out in broad terms the types of inquiries and processes to which the new duties will attach. It includes statutory and non-statutory inquiries, inquests and local authority inquiries. The Bill has drawn criticism in some quarters for what it has omitted, such as investigations by Ombudsmen and criminal and regulatory investigations. However, clause 8 also states that further types of investigation may, by regulations, be specified as ones falling within its scope. Thus, the door has been left open for the statutory duty to apply to further kinds of procedures and processes going forward.

In terms of who comes under the duties, Schedule 2 clarifies that a “public authority” includes a wide range of bodies, including government departments, ministers, any of the regular or reserve forces, police forces, local authorities, NHS bodies, schools and further education providers. The duty also extends to bodies with “functions of a public nature”, or whose functions “include functions of a public nature”, but only “to the extent of its functions of a public nature”. This may generate a significant legal argument going forward.

The new offences

The Bill introduces a range of new offences. Most notable are:

Clause 5: the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance. A person will be guilty of this offence if they also intend that their failure will impede the inquiry or investigation, or are reckless as to whether it will do so. The penalties range from a fine to two years’ imprisonment.
Clause 11: the offence of misleading the public. One of the most controversial aspects of the Bill, this clause specifies that a public authority or public official commits an offence if they act with the intention of misleading the public, or are reckless as to whether their act will do so, and they know or ought to know that their act is seriously improper. Clause 11(3) further defines what a “seriously improper” act is, clarifying that this offence is reserved only for the most serious kinds of misconduct, such as “significant or repeated” dishonesty which “caused, or contributed to causing, harm”.

In respect of both of these offences, the evidential burdens to be met by prosecutors will be very high. While it is unclear how many individuals or authorities are expected to actually be prosecuted under the new law, the aspiration is clear: high professional, moral and ethical standards are expected of those holding public office.

There will, of course, be difficult questions to be answered by courts. Does a public official, with a sincerely-held belief in a conspiracy theory, for instance, commit an offence of misleading the public by espousing that view on social media? Does a politician who lies to the public about a serious matter in their personal life commit an offence, or would such matters not be of “significant concern to the public”?

The approach to be taken by courts, and the extent to which the Bill can restore shattered trust in public bodies and officials, remain to be seen, but should be eagerly observed by all those engaging with, representing or challenging the decisions of public bodies.

This article was written by Claudia Hyde.

You can watch the full webinar recording here.