Hillsborough Law: what is it and what does it mean for bereaved families and Young Legal Aid Lawyers?

Hillsborough Law, officially the Public Office (accountability) Bill is the result of almost 40 years of campaigning by the bereaved families of the Hillsborough disaster. It has been passed by the House of Commons and is awaiting consideration by the House of Lords. This article will explain its origins, its provisions and what it means for bereaved families and their lawyers.

The bill imposes a duty of candour on public authorities and officials to tell the truth and proactively cooperate with official investigations and inquiries. It imposes criminal sanctions for breaching this duty of candour or for misleading the public in a way that is “seriously improper”. It will also expand legal aid funding so that there is a parity of representation.

This bill cannot be understood without understanding the tragedy that led to its conception.

Hillsborough Disaster and legal proceedings

In 1987, Liverpool fans travelled to Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield FA Cup semi-final against Nottingham Forest. There was a huge bottleneck of supporters trying to enter the stadium through only 7 turnstiles, so Commander David Duckenfield ordered the opening of an exit gate, which led to an influx of supporters through a tunnel and resulting in the fatal crush as fans were caged in by the metal fences blocking the pitch. 97 people died and 766 were injured. After the event, David Duckenfield lied to the Football Association that football fans had forced open the exit gate; this set the template for South Yorkshire Police’s stance of blaming ‘drunk football hooligans’ that persisted in legal proceedings over the next 30 years.

Despite the Taylor Report in 1990 determining that the disaster was caused by “the failure of police control”,  the 1991 inquest returned an “accidental death” verdict. The bereaved families were only able to afford one barrister who was outnumbered by the publicly funded lawyers representing the police. It later transpired that South Yorkshire Police had provided altered accounts and witness statements to minimise criticism of senior officers.

Decades passed without justice, and it was only after years of campaigning that the Hillsborough Independent Panel was set up and published its damning report. The High Court quashed the 1991 inquest verdict, and a fresh inquest in 2016 returned a majority verdict of Unlawful Killing by Gross Negligence Manslaughter (which at that time, required the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt). The jury determined that no supporter had caused or contributed to the disaster that unfolded.

A prosecution followed for David Duckenfield for gross negligence manslaughter. Despite the inquest conclusion and his testimony at the inquest, his defence counsel was allowed to rely on the falsified statements from the Taylor Inquiry and the narrative of drunk football hooligans. Commander Duckenfield was acquitted. Two senior officers and a lawyer were prosecuted for perverting the course of justice for amending witness statements. The trial judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict as the Taylor Inquiry was a non-statutory departmental inquiry, was not therefore a course of justice, and thus the amending of the statements for this process (even if they then were used for subsequent judicial processes) was not an offence. The only prosecution to result from Hillsborough was for the former Sheffield Wednesday secretarywho was fined £6500 for a health and safety offence.

Hillsborough Law attempts to right this wrong: that there has been no real criminal sanction for Hillsborough and its cover up.

What are the Bill’s provisions?

The duty of candour will apply to all court proceedings, inquiries and investigations. Public officials must act with honesty and integrity at all times, with criminal sanctions for “egregious” breaches, or for misleading the public “in a way which is seriously improper”.  It is worth noting that a duty of candour already exists for healthcare providers following a 2014 amendment to the Health and Social Care Act and is enforced by the Care Quality Commission.  It is not clear how this Bill will be enforced, either through a separate body, or via the CPS, but serious questions should be asked about impartiality of the CPS given the its approach in the Hillsborough cases. 

The Bill provides that legal aid will be available to bereaved families without a means test where a public authority is an Interested Person. This removes the current Article 2 test i.e. self-inflicted or unnatural deaths in state custody or that the state body knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. There are currently around 250 Legal Help and ECF cases funded per year but under the new scheme, it is estimated there will be an increase of up to 11,400 cases per year.

What does this mean for families and their representatives?

This bill will massively expand access to justice to bereaved families both through the provision of funding, and the requirement for authorities to comply honestly with investigations. It is likely that there will be huge increase in the amount, length and complexity of inquest cases and young lawyers in legal aid will likely be called upon and trained to manage this new demand.  However, how the coroner’s courts and Legal Aid Agency (both already beset with delays) will manage this massive increase, is yet to be seen.

Let’s be clear:  this bill is a wonderful thing for families. It will criminalise cover ups, (which is one of the most painful things for bereaved families) and puts them on an equal footing to state agencies in inquest proceedings. It should result in less adversarial inquest proceedings and organisations being more open learning, which should prevent future deaths.  The expansion of funding means we won’t have to turn away those families who do not pass the Article 2 threshold but who deserve to understand how their loved one has died when there has been state involvement. However, let us not forget the fight required by those brave bereaved to get to this point, and that many of them have died before seeing this bill come to fruition.

Sources

1. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill as passed by the Commons on 14 July 2026, and currently before the House of Lords,https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/67333/documents/8621   (accessed 16 August 2026)
2. House of Commons Library, Public Office (Accountability) Bill, progress of the Bill 2024 – 2026, Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26: Progress of the bill – House of Commons Library (accessed 16 August 2026)
3. The Guardian, the great betrayal: how the Hillsborough families were failed by the justice system, 21 October 2021, The great betrayal: how the Hillsborough families were failed by the justice system | Hillsborough disaster | The Guardian (accessed 16 August 2026)
4. IOPC, The Hillsborough Disaster, the report of the IOPC and Operation Resolve investigations, 2 December 2025, https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/hillsborough-report (accessed 16 August 2026)
5. Legal Action Group, Elkan Abrahamson, Hillsborough Law and legal aid, 23 January 2026 Legal Action Group | The Hillsborough Law and legal aid, (accessed 16 August 2026)
6. Hillsborough Law to ensure truth never concealed by state again – GOV.UK, 15 September 2025 (accessed 16 August 2026)
7. https://hillsboroughlawnow.org/ (accessed 16 August 2026)
8. The report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel HC 581, September 2021 (accessed 16 August 2026)
9. The Taylor Report, Hillsborough-Stadium-Disaster-final-report.pdf, 15 April 1989, (accessed 16 August 2026)