Blog
(Another) legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities?
Lord Carter of Haslemere CB
After many years of campaigning, and further to the Government’s commitment to introduce a statutory duty of candour for public bodies, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2025 (also known as the ‘Hillsborough Law’ bill) was introduced last week.
The main features of the bill appeared within the 2017 private members’ bill which was drafted in response to the failings exposed by the Hillsborough Independent Panel and subsequent inquest. Although that bill did not survive the General Election, these issues have remained the focus of campaigns by those affected by Hillsborough, Grenfell and the infected blood scandal.
As the bill proceeds through the legislative process, it will be subject to extensive debate within Parliament and intense discussion across the communities which will be impacted. In the meantime, we have outlined the key features of the bill below.
‘Duty of Candour and Assistance’
The bill introduces a statutory duty of candour and assistance for public authorities, public officials and others with public responsibilities in their dealings with both statutory and non-statutory inquiries and coronial investigations. Ministers may extend the duty to other types of investigations in secondary legislation.
This duty requires the public body to act with candour, transparency and frankness at all times. This includes proactively informing and drawing attention to relevant information and providing such assistance as they can reasonably give to assist an inquiry or investigation to meet its objectives.
Significantly, the bill contains criminal sanctions for failing to comply with this new duty, along with a new offence of misleading the public. This new offence is intended to capture the most serious instances of public officials or authorities misleading the public, requiring intent or recklessness along with knowledge that the act is ‘seriously improper.’
Statutory Standards of Ethical Conduct
It is proposed to impose a statutory duty on public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain high standards of ethical conduct. This is defined as conduct consistent with principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, which are the ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’ (known as the Nolan Principles) developed nearly 30 years ago.
The draft legislation specifies the matters that must be addressed by a code of conduct, including the practical ways in which standards are to be met, the disciplinary consequences for any failures to meet those standards, and the steps that a person may take if they believe that another person has failed to act in accordance with the code.
Replacement of common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office
Following recommendations made by the Law Commission in 2020, the bill abolishes the common law offence of misconduct in public office and replaces it with two new statutory offences.
The first is a ‘seriously improper acts’ offence, which is committed when a person who holds public office uses that office to obtain a benefit or to cause another person to suffer a detriment, knowing their behaviour is ‘seriously improper.’
The second offence is a breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. This can only be committed by a person who holds public office whose role involves a duty to prevent (or prevent a risk of) another person suffering critical harm, and it arises when they intentionally or recklessly breach that duty. The offence only covers situations where the public office holder’s actions fall far below the standard that could reasonably be expected in the circumstances.
Representation in inquests and inquiries
The bill extends means-tested public funding for bereaved family members to enable them to participate fully in inquiries and investigations in order to ensure proportionality with respect to representation in inquisitorial proceedings. This is reinforced by a requirement for public authorities to ensure that their own legal representation is necessary and proportionate.
Next Steps
The bill was introduced on 16 September 2025. The next stage will be the second reading where a Minister will set out the main impact of the draft bill and the principles behind it, and MPs will have their first opportunity to comment.
about the author
Kirsty joined the Public Law team in October 2024, as an Associate Barrister. Prior to joining Kingsley Napley, Kirsty worked at the Government Legal Department for several years as both a litigator and an advisory lawyer. As part of that role she was an advisory lawyer in a central government department advising on a range of public law matters including decision-making, the development and implementation of policies, and judicial review challenges. She was also involved in developing and implementing primary and secondary legislation, including supporting ministers and policy officials through the legislative process in Parliament.
Latest blogs & news
A Plethora of Public Inquiries
This article was first published by New Law Journal on 4th August.
The Terms of Reference for the Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry
As we await the publication of the terms of reference for the UK wide Covid-19 Inquiry, in this blog I consider the key features of the recently published terms of reference for the Scottish Inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Covid-19 Inquiry – the importance of the terms of reference
Any day now the Covid-19 Inquiry will publish draft terms of reference. This will be a significant event. Once agreed, the terms of reference will determine the scope and length of the inquiry which is due to begin its work in the Spring. In turn this will have a direct impact on how valuable the inquiry turns out to be.
The right to equality in fertility treatment
A same-sex couple have commenced a significant test case against a branch of the NHS fertility sector for discrimination against them on grounds of their sexuality.
Court considers that intransigent public inquiry witnesses will often give evidence once they have been compelled to attend
In a 16 November 2021 blog, I described how refusing to give evidence to a public inquiry might play out. Another new case, Chairman of the Manchester Arena Inquiry v Romdhan [2021] EWHC 3274 (Admin), reinforces my view. Potential witnesses in next year’s coronavirus (Covid-19) inquiry take note.
Essential Planning for the COVID Inquiry - Sophie Kemp provides insight for the Carer
Given a judge-led inquiry into how the Scottish Government handled the COVID pandemic will start before the end of this year, many are anxiously awaiting news of the Government’s promised UK- wide public inquiry.
Back in May 2021, No 10 committed to that inquiry starting in Spring 2022. Yet months on, details are scant. Who will Chair it? What are its terms of reference? Yes, there may be six months to go, but vital questions remain before any inquiry of this national significance and stature begins.
Regulation and Uptake of the COVID-19 Vaccine
The government has now approved the supply of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The reason they have been able to do this so quickly is because they have taken advantage of the temporary authorisation regime laid out by the Human Medicine Regulations of 2012 and 2020. The 2012 Regulations were updated in 2020 specifically to facilitate the smooth rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. In the public consultation preceding the introduction of these updated regulations, several respondents raised concerns regarding unlicensed vaccines and immunity from civil liability. In practice, very little is known about these regulations and their application. This article seeks to shed some light on the temporary authorisation regime and suggest a means of alleviating concerns in the context of “vaccine hesitancy”.
Parliamentary scrutiny in the time of Coronavirus
As a new nationwide lockdown comes into effect, Stephen Parkinson and Charlie Roe from our Public Law team, consider the often limited role of Parliament in scrutinising restrictive regulations throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
The inquest process during COVID-19 restrictions
Inquest proceedings, like other legal proceedings in the UK, have been significantly affected by social distancing restrictions and advice arising from the COVID-19 crisis. This blog looks briefly at the impact of the Coronavirus Act 2020 on proceedings, and examines the Chief Coroner’s guidance notes to coroners working during the crisis.
The future public inquiry into COVID-19
The devastation wrought by COVID-19 has led to profound questions about the UK government’s response to the pandemic. Calls for a public inquiry are continuing to mount and are likely to prove difficult to resist. This blog considers the framework for such inquiries, and the key issues likely to form the core of its terms of reference.
COVID-19 and contact tracing apps: A test of public confidence in data privacy?
Dominic Raab announced last week that the current UK lockdown would last for at least another three weeks. These restrictions are unlikely to be relaxed until a large scale plan is in place to track and restrict the spread of the virus. Part of this plan will involve the use of the NHS “contact tracing” app, which we have been told is in an advanced stage of development.
You may also be interested in:
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
Contact us today
Or call +44 (0)20 7814 1200
You may also be interested in:
Blog
Enhancing Public Accountability: Key Elements of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2025
Kirsty Cook
Blog
A New Era of Football Regulation - The Independent Football Regulator
Natalie Cohen
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print