Public Office Bill: Toward Transparency & Justice

This week the government introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill - a result of years of tireless campaigning by Hillsborough Law Now alongside bereaved families and survivors of the Hillsborough disaster and other public tragedies.  

The Bill, drawing on proposed legislation developed with Hillsborough families and lawyers from Broudie Jackson Canter and Garden Court North, introduces a ‘duty of candour’ on public authorities: a duty to openly and honestly help public investigations and inquiries uncover the truth. It also expands legal aid for bereaved families at inquests and replaces the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office with two new offences targeting serious wrongdoing by public officials.  

JUSTICE welcomes the Bill and the Government's commitment to ensuring that truth and justice is delivered for those affected by tragedies like Hillsborough, the Grenfell Tower Fire, the Post Office Horizon scandal, and many others.  

Duty of Candour  

Central to the Bill is the introduction of a legal duty of candour and assistance. This requires public authorities and officials to be frank and transparent in their dealings with public inquiries and investigations, ⁱ  to proactively provide information and assistance, ⁱⁱ and to act expeditiously without favour to their own position. ⁱⁱⁱ The Bill places a specific obligation on the official in charge of a public body to take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance.^iv

Failure to comply will, in some instances, be a criminal offence punishable with up to two years in prison.^v This includes where the failure was intended to impede the inquiry or investigation, or where the breach relates to a failure to assist or take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, and the person was reckless as to whether it would impede the inquiry or investigation.^vi The Bill also introduces criminal sanctions for officials who intentionally mislead the public in circumstances where they knew or should have known that their act was seriously improper.^vii

Importantly, the bill extends the duty of candour and assistance beyond public authorities, to those with a “public responsibility” - including organisations with health and safety responsibilities or those providing a service to a public authority that had a significant impact on members of the public.^viii For example, this might cover construction companies subject to health and safety responsibilities in relation to people affected by a tragedy, as was the case in Grenfell, or private social care providers or prisons.  

Commentary  

It is good to see the government embracing a robust duty of candour, with meaningful consequences for those who commit serious breaches.

As highlighted for decades by victims, families, and campaigners, public inquiries and investigations are too often marred with institutional defensiveness on the part of the state. This causes further suffering to grieving families who find themselves battling for answers and blocks meaningful change and accountability.^ix Institutional defensiveness during investigations into tragedies like Hillsborough also undermines public confidence and trust in investigations and the institutions involved.  

The duty of candour introduced by this Bill will help guard against this kind of obfuscation, strengthening the ability of inquiries and investigations to reach the truth and identify steps to prevent future tragedies. Moreover, by requiring relevant officials and bodies to proactively help these processes, the duties introduced could facilitate earlier findings, preventing drawn-out investigations with escalating costs.  

It is positive that the duty of candour and assistance has been extended to include private bodies holding public responsibility. Tragedies like Grenfell, which involved significant failings by private bodies, demonstrate the vital need for transparency and accountability on the part of all those with public responsibility, particularly in the context of an increased government reliance on the private sector to provide important public services.

Finally, we welcome the recognition of the need for sanctions to ensure compliance. Any requirement to be candid risks being ineffective if not backed by a meaningful deterrent. For instance, although all police forces in 2021 signed a Hillsborough charter requiring signatories to commit to a candid approach to public scrutiny reviews continue to find institutional defensiveness within the police.^x The impact of these new offences will of course depend on the willingness of the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue them.

Legal Aid and Promoting Participation  

The Bill introduces non-means tested legal aid for bereaved family members at inquests where a public authority is an ‘interested person’ (very roughly, a public authority whose actions may have contributed to the death in question).^xi This includes both legal help to prepare, as well as advocacy during the inquest.^xii It also obligates public bodies to ensure they only engage legal representatives in public inquiries and investigations where and to the extent to which this is necessary and proportionate, and introduces guidance aimed at safeguarding the inquisitorial (i.e. non-adversarial truth-seeking) nature of these proceedings and promoting family and victim participation.^xiii

Commentary  

These reforms represent a significant and welcome expansion of the current legal aid regime at inquests.  

Currently, legal help at inquests is only available subject to a means and merits test, or through exceptional case funding (ECF). Advocacy is only available through ECF, in other words where it is required by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights or where representation is in the “wider public interest” such that it “is likely to produce significant benefits for a class of person, other than the applicant and members of the applicant’s family.”

As JUSTICE previously highlighted, the limited number of circumstances in which families are entitled to ECF means many are left to navigate complex legal processes alone and in the midst of grief, whilst state interested persons can typically deploy ranks of solicitors, junior barristers and KCs. Examples of cases where families may not be eligible for ECF include self-inflicted deaths of voluntary patients in mental health settings or under the care of a mental health trust in the community, deaths in supported accommodation or in care settings where the person has been placed by a public body or local authority. This expansion of legal aid is a therefore welcome step in levelling the playing field for bereaved families, ensuring they can properly participate at their loved one's inquest.  

We welcome the requirement that state representation be proportionate and necessary, and hope that this is effective in further promoting equality of arms between families and victims and the state in these proceedings. It should also help prevent the spiralling legal costs incurred during inquiries like the one into undercover policing, which as of December had cost the taxpayer over £100 million.  

Misleading the Public, and Misconduct in Public Office  

In addition to the criminal offences relating to the duty of candour and misleading the public, the Bill replaces the common law of offence of Misconduct in Public Office with two new statutory offences.  

The first prohibits public office holders from using their office to gain a benefit or cause detriment, where they knew, or should have known, their conduct was seriously improper.^xiv The second applies where a public office holder intentionally or recklessly causes, or creates a significant risk of causing, critical harm in breach of their duty to prevent it.^xv  

Commentary  

These reforms closely follow recommendations made by the Law Commission in 2020, which criticised the common law offence for its vagueness and disproportionate use against front line or junior officials, rather than senior managers and politicians. Spotlight on Corruption research shows that, of the 191 people convicted of the offence since January 2014, only 4 occupied senior executive office at the time.  

The government has stated its intention to target serious wrongdoing. While it remains to be seen whether these new offences will lead to more prosecutions of senior officials, the focus on corruption and breach of a duty to prevent harm - alongside the Bill making it explicit that the offences apply to senior officer holders, including ministers, MPs and Peers – suggests a shift towards greater accountability for those at the top.  

What next  

This Bill is a significant step forward for ensuring public authorities and private bodies are held accountable when things go badly wrong. Whether it succeeds in promoting a culture of openness and ensuring families get answers, will depend on how its provisions are implemented in practice. JUSTICE will continue to advocate for its implementation in ways that promote truth and justice and save future lives.  

‍

Thumbnail photo credit: the blowup / Unsplash

Endnotes

[i] Public Office (Accountability) Bill (2025), cl 2.

[ii] Public Office (Accountability) Bill (2025), cl 2(1).

[iii] Public Office (Accountability) Bill (2025), cl 2(3) -(4).

[iv] Public Office (Accountability) Bill (2025), cl 2(5).

[v] Public Office (Accountability) Bill (2025), cl 2(5).

[vi] Public Office (Accountability) Bill (2025), cl 5.

[vii] Public Office (Accountability) Bill (2025), cl 5 (1).

[viii] Public Office (Accountability) Bill (2025), cl 11.

[ix] Public Office (Accountability) Bill (2025), cl 4.

[x] JUSTICE, When Things Go Wrong: The response of the justice system (2020), para 4.4, INQUEST, ‘Family reflections on Grenfell: No voice left unheard (INQUEST report if the Grenfell Family Consultation Day)’ (2019);The Rt Hon Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, Report of the Independent Review of Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody (2017), para 17.2; The Rt Rev Bishop James Jones KBE, ‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’: A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated (2017), p.18.  

[xi] Bishop James Jones’ Charter for Families Bereaved through Public Tragedy, requires signatories to commit to approaching “public scrutiny –including public inquiries and inquests – with candour, in an open, honest and transparent way, making full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts.” The Rt Rev Bishop James Jones KBE, ‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’: A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated (HC 511, 2017), p.7.  

[xii] See Baroness Casey DBE CB, An independent review into the standards of behaviour and internal culture of the Metropolitan Police Service (2023);Dame Vera Baird KC, The Baird Inquiry: An Independent report into the experience of people who are arrested and taken into custody by Greater Manchester Police with a focus on women and girls (2024),p.158.    

‍

‍