The Hillsborough Law is not perfect but it represents a positive step toward greater fairness and accountability - Michaela Bolton
In September, Parliament saw the introduction of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, better known as the ‘Hillsborough Law’. The Bill follows decades of campaigning following the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. After the deaths of 97 football fans at the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, bereaved families faced prolonged obstruction and cover-ups by public bodies.
The Hillsborough Law seeks to impose a statutory duty of candour and enforceable accountability for public bodies involved in inquiries and investigations, as well as parity of legal representation for bereaved families involved in inquest processes where the state is involved.
For those less familiar with legal and investigatory systems, many of these proposals may seem to state principles that already exist. Isn’t honesty expected of public officials? Don’t government officials have to disclose what they know when they are being investigated?
These are reasonable questions, and it is understandable that many of our clients are asking them. Sadly, this highlights the gap between how public responsibility is perceived and how it operates in practice.
At Simpson Millar, we have for many years supported individuals and families seeking answers from public bodies through inquests, judicial reviews and public inquiries.
While many public officials act with integrity and in good faith, experience repeatedly shows a troubling disparity between what families expect and what the law requires of public actors.
At present there is no enforceable statutory duty of candour requiring public authorities to be proactively honest, open, and forthcoming in investigations or legal proceedings. No criminal offence for seriously misleading the public in these contexts, even where the consequences can be severe. No automatic legal representation for bereaved families at inquests where the state is represented, leaving many to face an emotionally demanding process without advice or advocacy.
Families often rely on discretionary funding or pro bono support in inquests, campaign for years before inquiries uncover the truth about systemic wrongs and depend heavily on charities such as INQUEST to ensure their voices are heard.
It is tempting to view the Hillsborough disaster and the fight for truth and accountability as an exception. The same might be said of the Post Office Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, or the Grenfell fire. These were extraordinary events with tragic consequences and long histories of institutional failure.
While the scale of these cases may be exceptional, the underlying issues are worryingly familiar. In our work, we regularly encounter responses from public bodies that are defensive, partial or delayed disclosure, and limited transparency. This approach threatens public confidence in our institutions.
For many bereaved families, inquests can feel like adversarial investigations that appear to safeguard institutional reputation rather than to establish facts.
In contexts such as deaths in custody, we see systems that fall short of fairness - not necessarily through conscious obstruction, but often through delay, inadequate processes, or uncertainty over responsibilities and obligations.
In our work advising on government policy and decision-making, we often encounter public bodies prioritising institutional reputation ahead of transparency. Members of the public are often dependent on inquiries, litigation, or charities to establish the facts of incidents that have altered their lives. Often, these processes are years delayed, insufficiently detailed, or don’t happen at all.
Families are often drawn into complex legal processes at their lowest point, with limited information, no representation, and no clear understanding of their rights or the duties of public authorities.
The Hillsborough Law is not perfect, and its scope, enforcement and resourcing will require scrutiny. But the absence of the duties it introduces in current law is felt very strongly by many of our clients and their families we work with away from public view. The changes proposed by the Hillsborough Law represent a positive step toward greater fairness and accountability.
Ultimately, the value of the Hillsborough Law will lie in its impact and implementation, but it has the potential to contribute to rebuilding public trust in state institutions.
The Bill is only at the start of its journey. Introduced in the Commons on 16 September 2025, it now faces several instances of scrutiny across both Houses before Royal Assent and commencement.
For the envisaged reforms to deliver meaningful change, they must remain a legislative priority.
At Simpson Millar, we will continue to follow the Bill’s progress closely and to support families as they navigate complex legal systems and processes. Our focus remains on ensuring that when the state is called to account, it does so with candour, fairness, and transparency.
Michaela Bolton is a solicitor in public law and human rights at Simpson Millar.