A new duty of candour could change how organisations engage with inquests, inquiries and public investigations. Here’s what to watch now.

Published: 23 September 2026
Authors: Nancy Wesby

Background

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, commonly known as the Hillsborough Bill, has progressed through Parliament and is currently at Second Reading in the House of Lords, following Commons amendments relating to the security and intelligence services. Subject to completing the remaining parliamentary stages, it is expected to receive Royal Assent before the end of the current Parliamentary session.

The Bill responds to longstanding concerns about the conduct of public authorities and officials following major incidents, investigations and public inquiries. Although rooted in the experiences of the Hillsborough families after the 1989 disaster, it has also been shaped by wider concerns about institutional defensiveness and lack of transparency in major public scandals and inquiries, including Grenfell, the Infected Blood Inquiry, Windrush and the Post Office Horizon affair.

The Bill is also heavily influenced by Bishop James Jones' 2017 report to Parliament, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power, commissioned after the fresh Hillsborough inquests. The report identified 25 "points of learning", including a statutory duty of candour for public authorities, greater support and participation rights for bereaved families, and a cultural shift towards openness, transparency and accountability. Many of those recommendations underpin what is now known as the Hillsborough Law.

In summary, the Bill aims to ensure that public authorities and officials perform their functions with candour, frankness and in the public interest by:

• imposing a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in inquiries and investigations, backed by criminal liability
• requiring public authorities to promote and maintain ethical conduct
• creating new offences of failing to uphold the duty of candour and assistance, and misleading the public
• replacing the common law offence of misconduct in public office with two statutory offences
• expanding non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests in England and Wales where a public authority is an interested person

Who does it apply to?

The Bill applies to a wide range of public authorities and public officials, including central government departments, NHS bodies, local authorities, Integrated Care Boards and the intelligence and security services.

Importantly, however, the obligations are not limited to the public sector. They would also extend to those with a "relevant public responsibility" in connection with an incident under investigation or inquiry, so that organisations closely connected to public functions cannot avoid transparency obligations simply because they sit outside government.

This includes organisations providing services under a direct contract with a public authority, as well as individuals and organisations with health and safety responsibilities connected to the incident. The Bill could therefore capture private sector organisations whose activities are closely linked to public services or public safety.

The explanatory notes give the following example: “…in an event similar to the Post Office Horizon scandal, a public authority contracted with a private company to supply computer software, and defects in that software resulted in significant impacts on members of the public, that company could be subject to the duty of candour and assistance.”.

For private sector organisations, this may be one of the Bill's most significant features. Businesses delivering outsourced public services, supplying critical systems to the public sector, or exercising health and safety responsibilities in connection with an incident could find themselves within scope.

What does it do?

A statutory duty of candour and assistance

Public authorities and public officials must act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with statutory and non-statutory inquiries and inquests. The Bill also allows the duty to be extended to other investigations, including criminal, regulatory, supervisory and public service investigations.

The duty is proactive. Those subject to it must notify the relevant chair, coroner or investigator where their actions or decisions may be relevant, provide reasonable assistance, disclose relevant information, respond openly and accurately, and correct information later found to be incomplete, inaccurate or misleading.

The duty goes beyond responding to information requests. Public authorities and officials are expected to help establish the full facts, placing transparency and accountability above institutional or reputational concerns. Inquiry chairs and coroners may issue directions to secure compliance.

A criminal offence is committed where a person deliberately fails to comply with the duty in order to hinder an inquiry or investigation from finding out what happened or achieving its purpose. An offence may also arise where, after being required to provide information or assistance, they act recklessly as to whether their failure will obstruct the process.

The duty does not override legal professional privilege, the privilege against self-incrimination or public interest immunity. However, questions are likely to arise as to how these protections interact with the new obligations in practice, including when organisations will be regarded as falling within scope. Early case law is therefore likely to be closely watched.

Mandatory ethical conduct framework

The Bill requires public authorities to promote and maintain high standards of ethical conduct, transparency and frankness, and to have regard to guidance expected to align with the Nolan Principles.

Public bodies must adopt a code of conduct explaining how staff should act with candour, transparency and openness, how those standards apply in practice, and the consequences of failing to meet them, including where failures may amount to gross misconduct.

The code must also explain:

• how concerns can be raised where someone may not have complied with the code
• the process for protected disclosures, including relevant internal policies
• how members of the public can complain about the authority or its staff, including any external complaint bodies

New criminal offence - Misleading the public

The Bill creates a new offence where a public authority intentionally or recklessly misleads the public and its conduct is "seriously improper".

Conduct will be "seriously improper" only where a reasonable person would regard it as such in all the circumstances. This includes significant or repeated dishonesty on matters of substantial public concern, such as inaccurate evidence to an inquiry, withholding key documents, failing to disclose public safety information, or misleading bereaved families. The conduct must have caused, contributed to, or risked harm, and significantly depart from expected standards.

Seriously improper acts to prevent death or serious injury

The Bill introduces a new offence of breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. It applies where a public office holder has a role-based duty to protect another person from death or serious injury, knows or ought to know of that duty, and intentionally or recklessly breaches it, causing or creating a significant risk of such harm. The breach must fall far below the expected standard.

"Critical harm" means death or grievous bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. CPS guidance indicates that grievous bodily harm may include life-changing injuries and injuries requiring significant or sustained medical treatment, even where the person later makes a full or near-full recovery.

The offence is intended to apply only to public office holders whose roles inherently involve protecting others from critical harm, such as members of the armed forces, firefighters and police officers.

The proposed offence would replace misconduct in public office and provide a clearer statutory basis for accountability where intentional or reckless breaches of duty expose others to critical harm.

Parity of arms for bereaved families

The Bill will introduce non-means-tested legal aid for families at inquests whenever a public authority is an interested person and is legally represented. Public authorities must ensure their own representation is necessary and proportionate, and chairs and coroners must have regard to an overriding objective of enabling full and effective participation by affected persons.

In practice, these provisions may increase the number of legally represented participants and the scrutiny applied to the evidence and decision-making of public bodies. Public authorities will also need to consider carefully whether legal representation is necessary and proportionate in each case.

The Lord Chancellor must also issue conduct guidance for public authorities and their lawyers, which may influence approaches to disclosure, engagement with interested persons and participation in inquests.

Operational questions remain, including when funding will be available and whether the regime will achieve parity where legal aid rates differ from rates available to lawyers acting for public authorities.

Practical readiness: steps organisations can take now

Although the Bill remains subject to the parliamentary process, organisations that may fall within scope should consider whether their governance and investigation procedures would support compliance with the proposed duty of candour and assistance.

Practical steps include reviewing policies and training to promote transparent engagement with inquiries, investigations and inquests; identifying internal ownership and escalation routes for significant incidents; assessing document retention, preservation and disclosure processes; and, for suppliers to public authorities, reviewing contracts to ensure cooperation, information sharing and investigation obligations are clearly allocated.

Organisations likely to be involved in inquiries or inquests should also consider how legal professional privilege, public interest immunity and information governance would be managed in practice, and whether protocols are in place to respond quickly to information and assistance requests.

Key issues to watch include:

A number of aspects of the Bill are likely to attract particular attention as it progresses through Parliament and, if enacted, through the courts:

• when non-means-tested legal aid will be available for families at inquests
• the practical impact of proportionality requirements on public authorities and their lawyers
• the extent to which private sector organisations providing public services or functions will fall within scope
• how the courts interpret key concepts, including "functions of a public nature" and the thresholds for the proposed offences

Conclusion

The Hillsborough Law represents a significant development in the legal framework governing inquiries, investigations and inquests. By imposing a proactive duty of candour and assistance, creating new enforcement mechanisms and extending obligations beyond traditional public bodies, the Bill may affect a broader range of organisations than its title initially suggests.

Whether all aspects of the proposals become law remains to be seen. However, organisations operating in regulated environments, delivering public services, or undertaking activities with significant public safety implications should monitor the Bill closely and consider whether their governance, investigation and disclosure processes would withstand the enhanced scrutiny envisaged by the legislation.