The Hillsborough Law: rhetoric or reform? Why we need the law to get to the truth

The gap between expectation and reality

At Simpson Millar, we have been supporting individuals and families for many years as they seek 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.

Was Hillsborough the exception or the rule?

It is tempting to view the Hillsborough disaster, and the fight for truth and accountability that followed, 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 such as deaths in custody, we see systems that fall short of fairness - not always through deliberate obstruction, but often through delay, inadequate processes, or uncertainty about responsibilities and obligations.

What the Hillsborough Law would change

If enacted, the Hillsborough Law would:

1. Impose a statutory duty of candour on public bodies and officials when participating in investigations and inquiries, turning best practice into a legal obligation.
2. Criminalise serious misleading of the public, introducing accountability where information is knowingly withheld or distorted.
3. Guarantee publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families at inquests where state bodies are represented, removing financial barriers to participation in processes of great significance for families.

A call for cultural and structural change

In our work advising on government policy and decision-making, we often encounter public bodies prioritising institutional reputation over transparency. Members of the public are often dependent on inquiries, litigation, or charities to establish the facts of incidents that have altered their lives. Too often, these processes are delayed for years, lack sufficient detail, 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 the families we work with away from public view. The changes proposed by the Hillsborough Law represent a positive step toward greater fairness and accountability.

What comes next

Ultimately, the value of the Hillsborough Law will depend on its implementation and impact, 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. The key stages include:

• Second Reading: a debate on the principle of the Bill.
• Committee Stage: a line-by-line examination, where the scope of the duty of candour and the strength of sanctions is likely to be tested. Stakeholders, including Hillsborough Law Now and INQUEST, have already raised concerns.
• Report and Third Reading: further debate, refinement, and consideration of amendments.
• Royal Assent: final approval before the law takes effect.

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.