The Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2025, otherwise known as Hillsborough Law, was published on 16 September 2025. It imposes on individuals, for the first time, a statutory duty of candour with criminal sanctions.  The Bill also provides for new offences relating to misconduct in public office and “levelling up” measures for inquests regarding legal representation. 

Key points 

Duty of candour and assistance 

The Bill imposes a statutory duty of “candour and assistance” on public authorities (PAs) and public officials (POs) to act with candour, transparency and frankness in relation to inquiries, investigations and inquests.   

• Eleven types of bodies are in the definition and include government departments and NHS organisations. The definition of PO is wide enough to cover NHS employees. 

• The statutory duty is backed by criminal sanctions of up to 2 years in prison or a fine (or both). 

• The duty is extended to service providers to PAs, so it would capture the independent sector contracted to do NHS work. 

Comment:  The Bill represents a significant extension of the current duty of candour. The statutory duty will be extended to include “assistance”. This will require PAs and POs to be proactive in assisting the inquiry, investigation or inquest, to achieve its objectives promptly, with candour and without favour to their own position.  This will mean, amongst other things, full disclosure of issues of concern and evidence, although the concept of legal privilege appears to have been retained. 

Offences of ‘breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury’ and ‘seriously improper conduct’ 

These replace the common law offence of misconduct in public office. Both offences would cover those working in the NHS. 

‘Breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury’ is committed if a PO who (by virtue of their public office) is under a duty to prevent (or to prevent the risk) of another person suffering “critical harm” (defined as death or grievous bodily harm); and 

• The PO knows or ought to know that they are under the duty. 

• In breach of the duty, intentionally or recklessly causes or creates a significant risk of causing another person to suffer critical harm. 

• The act constituting the breach falls below what could reasonably be expected of the person in the circumstances. 

• Defence: reasonable excuse for the act. 

• Criminal sanction: up to 14 years in prison. 

‘Seriously improper conduct’ is in essence, a PO obtaining a benefit or causing another person to suffer a detriment by use of their office. It too also requires awareness on the part of the office holder of their obligations, and there is a defence of reasonable excuse. The maximum penalty is up to 10 years in prison. 

Comment: The new offences, particularly ‘breach of duty to prevent serious injury’ carry severe criminal sanctions. Although the Government does not envisage a significant rise in prosecutions, there is potential for more criminal investigations of matters that would currently be confined to civil liability and claims for compensation. NHS organisations and those working under contract to them will need to review duty of candour policies and procedures to ensure that they align with the new requirements and, crucially, that the concept of ‘assisting’ inquiries, investigations and inquests is embedded in them. The explanatory notes to the Bill provide some reassurance about the type of act that would constitute a breach “(it) must fall far below the standard of what might reasonably be expected of the person in the circumstances. Honest mistakes, or finely balanced operational decisions, made in challenging circumstances will not be captured.” 

Parity of representation at inquiries, investigations and inquests 

The Bill makes provision to enable persons to participate at inquiries, investigations and inquests where the conduct of PAs may be in issue. To achieve parity of representation between PAs and affected persons/ bereaved families, this includes: 

• Tests of ‘necessity and proportionality’  when considering whether  PAs  should be legally represented 

• The extension of non-means tested Legal Aid for affected persons/ bereaved families. 

Comment:  The legal aid changes are estimated to cost at least an extra £68 million each year, and it is the policy intention that the costs of legal aid expansion will be met by the sponsoring department for the relevant public authority via a costs sharing mechanism.  All public authorities will need to give careful consideration to the issue of representation and how best to meet the enhanced duty of assistance to the Coroner.  

Other provisions 

The Bill requires PAs and POs to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority. It also creates an offence of misleading the public. 

The Bill has had its first reading in the House of Commons and will be subject to scrutiny in both the Commons and the House of Lords. We will be following the Bill’s progress. 

How Capsticks can help

If you have any queries around what is discussed in this insight, and the impact on you or your organisation, please speak to Philip Hatherall or Georgia Ford to find out more about how Capsticks can help.