The Hillsborough Law Bill, Part 3: Implications…

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.

The preamble to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill sets the tone: the legislation aims to impose a legal duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations. It also seeks to ensure affected persons can participate effectively in proceedings where state conduct is at issue.

Mandatory Notification: Duties under the Bill

Under Clause 2(3), the Bill imposes a mandatory obligation that public authorities and public officials must notify the person leading an inquiry or investigation if they have grounds to believe their acts are, or may be, relevant, or that they hold information likely to be relevant.

The duty reverses longstanding tendencies among institutions to wait for specific requests. Now, proactive disclosure becomes a statutory necessity.

This provision is also complemented by Clause 3, which creates a discretionary duty on a person leading an investigation, an inquiry chair, to require a public authority or public official to provide information by giving an oral or written statement.

Extending the Duty beyond Public Bodies

The duty of candour does not only apply to public bodies, but it is also mandatory for individuals and companies with “relevant public responsibilities in connection with an incident”. These include responsibilities related to health and safety or those which were carried out as a service provider to a public authority and had a significant impact on members of the public. This provision would most likely apply to a party under investigation in an Inquiry such as the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Clause 5 imposes an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance in respect of an inquiry of investigation.

Compliance Directions: The Bill’s most significant change

The Bill introduces a new mechanism: the “compliance direction”, which is arguably the most significant change brought by the Bill through an amendment to the Inquiries Act inserting section 23A.

This is a mandatory duty placed on inquiry chairs, whereby as soon as reasonably practicable after the start of an inquiry, the chair of the inquiry must (subject to issues regarding regional autonomy and official secrets) give a compliance direction to a public authority, a public official, or a person who had a relevant public responsibility.

This must be done if it appears to the chair that the person's acts may be relevant to the inquiry, or they otherwise have information likely to be relevant. Further, it is not limited to the start of the inquiry, so an inquiry chair can issue a compliance direction at any time.

Key Features of Compliance Directions

The direction must be addressed to a person “in charge” of a public authority or with relevant public responsibility. Meaning the direction is addressed not to an institution but to a specific person responsible for ensuring compliance. The importance of this is that it imposes a duty and a liability on an individual. This may go some way toward tackling institutional defensiveness and reducing the incentives for collective obfuscation.
A compliance direction compels adherence to the duties of candour and assistance.
A compliance direction cannot be used to require production of evidence that is subject to privilege or public interest immunity
Section 35 and 36 of the Inquiries Act 2005 apply to compliance directions in so far as an offense would be committed if there is non‑compliance
A person ceases to be subject to the duty of candour and assistance when the inquiry to which it relates ends.

Interaction with the Official Secrets Act 1989

A compliance direction may not be given to a public official if it would require providing information relating to security and intelligence within the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. A public official is not required to provide such information.

Section 1(9) includes:

work of or in support of the security and intelligence services, or any part of them, and
any information held or transmitted by those services, or in support of them

This is controversial, because the definition is wide. It could impact on public inquiries where the conduct of security agencies is under investigation, such as the Patrick Finucane inquiry, which is considering allegations of state collusion in his 1989 murder.

The existing powers in the Inquiries Act 2005 and the impact of Compliance Directions

Under the Inquiries Act, section 21 has been the main means by which public inquiries compel parties to comply.

Section 21 provides inquiry chairs with the power to compel witnesses to attend, provide statements, and produce documents. There are exceptions for matters covered by privilege and public interest immunity, but no references to the Official Secrets Act.
Section 35 provides an offence for failing to do anything required under a section 21 notice.
Section 21 notices can be enforced in the High Court or the Court of Session by the Inquiry Chair (or after the end of the Inquiry by the Minister)

The existing power is already a reasonably strong power with good enforcement mechanisms in place. For example, it was used to compel witnesses to attend the Post Office Inquiry following failures of disclosure.

Compliance directions may change practice in several ways:

Compliance directions could provide an exemption for members of the security services.
Compliance directions would likely have greater impact before hearings begin, particularly at the disclosure stage.
The knowledge that individuals may be personally responsible for non-disclosure may reduce institutional tendencies to defensiveness, and lead to greater institutional accountability. The Post Office Inquiry is an example where late disclosure repeatedly frustrated progress, compliance directions could help avoid such issues.
Potential for greater waiver of privilege due to increased accountability pressures.
An inquiry cannot rule on or determine a person’s civil or criminal liability, so there is a tension between being required to disclose something and self-incrimination. In inquiries now, witnesses are often warned not to incriminate themselves.
The new obligations may heighten this delicate balance.

Equality of Arms and Legal Aid Reform

Part 4 of the Bill introduces changes aimed at improving parity for participants in inquiries and inquests. Clause 18 provides for the following:

a requirement on public authorities to engage legal representatives where proportionate, which is already common practice;
imposes an obligation to have regard to the overriding objective to ensure affected persons can participate fully and effectively in inquiry or inquest proceedings;
significantly, introduces non‑means-tested legal aid for bereaved family members at inquests where a public authority is an interested person.

This last reform has been sought for years and directly addresses longstanding inequalities in inquests where state bodies are represented but families often are not.

Compliance Directions in Non‑Statutory Inquiries

The Bill extends compliance directions to non-statutory inquiries, which historically lacked compulsory powers. This represents a significant departure from the hitherto limited powers of a non- statutory Inquiry chairperson.

A number of the provisions of the Inquiries Act 2005 will apply to non-statutory inquiries in relation to the duty of candour (i.e. form of direction, exception for privilege and public interest immunity).

The significance of this change was highlighted during the preliminary hearing of the Manston Inquiry on 15 January 2026. The chair, Sophie Cartwright KC, expressly referenced the Bill and stated that the Inquiry “expects and encourages candour, transparency and frankness” from all participants. If and when, the Bill is enacted and comes into force, this expectation will become a requirement.

The Bill’s Impact on Coroners’ Inquests

The Bill also amends Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring senior coroners to issue compliance directions (subject to Official Secrets Act restrictions) to public authorities, public officials, or individuals with relevant public responsibilities where they are interested persons in the investigation.

This change will strengthen the investigatory capacity of inquests, particularly in cases involving significant public concern.

Conclusion

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill moves the system toward greater transparency, individual accountability, and early, proactive disclosure. By creating mandatory duties of candour, empowering inquiry chairs through compliance directions, extending obligations to private actors, and strengthening the position of bereaved families, the Bill aims to prevent the kinds of institutional failures and injustices seen in past scandal.

This article was written by Christopher Jacobs

You can watch the full webinar recording here.