The Public Authority (Accountability) Bill

On 16 September 2025, the government announced the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, known as the Hillsborough Law, into Parliament. The Bill still has some way to go before it can be made law, but its aims are bold, and if enacted in its current form it will significantly change the landscape for public inquiries and inquests.

The impetus behind the seismic changes (as the Ministry of Justice has described them) was the campaigning of those bereaved and harmed in disasters, including Hillsborough, who have long been calling for a law to enforce a duty of candour on public bodies and public servants and require them to actively assist in inquiry and inquest investigations. We examine the Bill’s key proposals and their potential impact.

Who will it apply to?

“Public authority” captures bodies spanning the full infrastructure of the state, including: ministers and government departments, the armed forces, police forces, local authorities, NHS bodies, education providers, and any other body with functions of a public nature.[1]

“Public official” is an individual who works for a public authority, holds office under a public authority or holds a relevant public office, those acting in a judicial capacity are exempt.[2]

What duties does it impose?

Duty of candour and assistance (Clauses 2 to 4)

The Bill places a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations. If passed, it may impose this duty on more than 1.9 million public servants.[3]

Crucially, the Bill also extends the duty of candour and assistance to those who are neither a public authority or official but who have “relevant public responsibility”, for example those with health and safety responsibilities or service providers who carried out activities on behalf of public bodies, in connection with an incident that had a significant impact on members of the public.

The duty applies as follows:

1. Where a public authority or public official has grounds to believe that their acts may be relevant to an inquiry[4] or coroner’s investigation[5] or have information that is likely to be relevant, the public authority or public official must notify the person leading the inquiry or investigation.
2. 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, including providing information, drawing attention to information, correcting errors or omissions and providing a position statement where necessary.
3. The Bill places a specific further obligation on the public official overseeing the authority, commonly the chief executive, who “must take all reasonable steps to secure that the authority complies with those obligations”.
4. In complying, the public authority or public official must act expeditiously and without favour to its own, or another’s, position.

Whilst the Bill’s stated purpose is to ensure that public authorities and public officials perform their functions with candour, transparency and frankness “at all times”, the statutory duty imposed applies to inquiries and coroners’ investigations, with a supplementary provision for the power to make regulations extending the duty to other types of investigation, should the government wish to do so.

Failure to comply with the duty of candour and assistance (Clause 5)

Criminal sanctions will follow non-compliance with this duty in the form of a new offence. The Bill makes failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance in respect of an inquiry or investigation an offence for which the maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment.

It must be shown that the Defendant either intended that their failure would impede the inquiry or investigation or, where a breach relates to a failure to assist or take all reasonable steps to secure compliance, that the Defendant was reckless as to whether it would impede the inquiry or investigation in achieving its objectives.

Other criminal offences

In addition to the new criminal offence set out above, the Bill contains three other new criminal offences:

Offence of misleading the public (Clause 11)

A public authority or public official commits this 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 was seriously improper. The offence carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

An act is “seriously improper” if:

1. The act involved significant or repeated dishonesty in respect of matters of significant concern to the public,
2. It caused, or contributed to causing, harm to one or more persons, or had the potential to do so, and
3. It departed significantly from what is expected in the proper exercise of a person’s functions as a public authority or public official.

If these conditions are met and a reasonable person would consider the act to be seriously improper in all the circumstances of the case, the offence is established. The clause contains an exemption for acts carried out for journalistic purposes.

Misconduct in public office (Clauses 12 and 13)

The Bill abolishes the common-law offence of misconduct in public office and creates two statutory offences of misconduct in public office intended to capture wrongdoing at the most serious level:

1. “Seriously improper conduct”

Under the Bill, anyone who uses their office to obtain a benefit (whether for themselves or another, or to cause another person to suffer a detriment) when they know or ought to know that doing so is seriously improper, commits an offence. Benefit and detriment can be temporary or permanent and can include financial gain, enhancement to a person’s reputation, or benefit of a physical or sexual nature. The Bill provides a reasonable excuse defence. The maximum penalty for the offence is ten years’ imprisonment.

2. “Breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury”

An offence will be committed where:

1. A person holds public office, and
2. As a result, is under a duty to prevent another person from suffering critical harm, and
3. They intentionally or recklessly cause, or create a significant risk of, critical harm, and
4. The breach falls far below what could reasonably be expected of the person in the circumstances.

The offence will carry a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.

These changes closely follow the recommendations of the Law Commission’s 2020 report, Misconduct in Public Office which concluded that the common law offence lacked clarity and certainty, and carried the potential for misuse.[6]

Parity of arms

The final key aim of the Bill is to achieve parity of arms between families and other interested persons in inquests (Clause 18). It does so through what the government describes as an ‘interlocking package’ of measures aimed at assisting families and placing new obligations on public authorities and courts.

Legal aid

It amends the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, to make non-means tested legal aid – for both legal advice and advocacy – available for all bereaved families in inquests where a public authority is also an interested person. This includes inquests where local authorities, government departments, the NHS, the armed forces, schools, or the police are IPs.

Balance in representation between families and public authorities

The Bill also places an obligation on public authorities to engage legal representation to act for them in inquiries and inquests only if, and so far as, necessary and proportionate, including by considering the comparative representation of the families involved. Exactly how this balance should be struck is not spelled out in the Bill, but the government has promised that statutory Lord Chancellor guidance for public authorities will follow. This will build on existing guidance already in place for government departments and “set out clear principles to guide the conduct and behaviour of public authorities and their legal representatives at inquests and inquiries”[7].

A new overriding objective

The Bill requires those conducting or participating in inquiries and inquests to have regard to a new, as yet unpublished, overriding objective that will aim to enable affected persons to participate fully and effectively and maintain the inquisitorial nature of proceedings. The overriding objective will be introduced via the separate Rules governing inquests and inquiries and is likely to be modelled on overriding objectives which exist in other settings, such as that contained in the Civil Procedure Rules.

Observations

The proposals contained in the Bill represent a radical change in the sanctions available to punish public authorities who are not transparent and candid in investigations surrounding inquests and inquiries. Coroners and inquiries already have powers to compel the disclosure of information, and some organisations and professions, such as doctors, have requirements of candour built into their professional regulations or internal guidance. The proposed changes will extend those requirements more widely, backed by the threat of criminal sanction. It will put the onus on the public bodies participating in such investigations to ensure their actions are transparent and to proactively assist the investigation from the earliest stage following a death or incident which impacts the public.

The Bill proposes a radical change in the way inquests in particular will be conducted. Most inquests include a public authority of some sort as an IP: under the Bill, the involvement of a hospital, GP practice, ambulance, or police service would all qualify the bereaved family for legally aided representation. The complexity of these hearings will expand where lawyers identify points which unpresented families may not otherwise have understood or pursued. If this Bill is made law public authorities will need to plan their approach to inquests on the basis that families will be represented, and the court will be expecting to see those bodies act in a way which achieves equality of arms between the participants.

[1] Schedule 2, paragraph 2

[2] Schedule 2, paragraph 3

[3] Hansard, Volume 772: debated on Wednesday 3 September 2025

[4] Meaning according to Chapter 1 (8(1)) of the Bill: an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, or an inquiry to which paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 applies (non-statutory inquiries);

[5] Including according to Chapter 1 (8(1)) of the Bill: an investigation under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, an inquest or inquiry by the procurator fiscal under section 1(1)(a) of the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016, an inquest under the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (c. 40 15 (N.I.))

[6] (LC 397, paragraph 3.99 onwards)

[7] Public Office (Accountability) Bill: Parity of Arms Factsheet