Hillsborough Law

Ninety-seven people died and hundreds more were injured as a result of the Hillsborough disaster on 15 April 1989. For almost three decades, the families and loved ones of those who died and those left to live with the undoubted psychological impact of the traumatic event, fought tirelessly to establish the truth about what happened. 

The Hillsborough Inquest 

The original inquest in 1991 concluded that the deaths were accidental, but that decision was quashed following the Hillsborough Independent Panel report of 2012 which paved the way for new inquest proceedings.  

Those proceedings ran from March 2014 until April 2016 with the jury concluding that those who died had been unlawfully killed. The jury also made several other significant findings including, amongst others: 

• Errors by the police resulting in a dangerous situation at the turnstiles 
• Mistakes in the police control room in relation to the opening of stadium exits 
• Defects at the stadium and errors with the safety certification  
• Failures by commanding officers which caused a crush on the terraces 
• Delays in the emergency response  

Whilst there was an outpouring of relief and triumph for those who had fought to establish the truth, concerns remained about how and why it had taken so long to reach this stage.  

Lack of candour 

Lawyers for the families cited the apparent lack of candour from the public authorities who, with no legal obligation to co-operate fully or transparently, were believed by many to have adopted a culture of self and reputational preservation. 

Funding for families of the bereaved in inquest proceedings 

Concerns were also raised with the lack of available funding for families in such proceedings which it was argued gave rise to a significant imbalance between the resources, including lawyers, that the authorities could put into the case compared to the families of the disaster.   

Whilst in the case of Hillsborough, the families’ legal costs for the inquests were ultimately met through a Home Office scheme, there was no guarantee that such a scheme would exist for those who may find themselves in a similar situation in the future. 

The Public Authority (Accountability) Bill 

It was from these concerns that the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill began to take shape. There was cross party political and public support for the law to be introduced but with a General Election called in 2017 and subsequent governments choosing not to resurrect it, the Bill rather fell by the wayside- until now.  

The Labour government pledged to introduce the Hillsborough Law, and it is understood that talks have been ongoing between government officials and representatives of the Hillsborough Law campaigners who now extend far beyond those directly effected by the 1989 disaster to those caught up in other  tragedies and scandals including the Grenfell Tower fire, Manchester Arena bombing and Post Office Horizon case. 

What can we expect from the Hillsborough Law? 

The Government has said that the Hillsborough Law represents a “landmark” piece of legislation “to ensure truth never concealed by state again”. 

Amongst the changes to be brought about by the new law will be: 

• A new professional and legal duty of candour requiring public officials to act with honesty and integrity at all times.  It is expected that there will be criminal sanctions for those displaying flagrant disregard to such duties. 
• A new offence created for misleading the public. Again, it is expected that there will be criminal sanctions for the most serious breaches. 
• An expansion of legal aid for bereaved families, providing non-means tested help and supports for inquests. 

The duty of candour 

The new law and in particular the duty of candour is hugely significant as without it there is an obvious risk that the authorities, institutions and those involved with them can avoid accountability. That lack of accountability invariably leads to the mistakes of the past being repeated with potentially catastrophic consequences which may include preventable harm or avoidable miscarriages of justices. With that in mind, the new legislation indicates a renewed commitment to prevent cover-ups and get to the truth in investigations into major disasters and institutional failings and that must be welcomed. 

The duty, however, would be rather futile if it were toothless, so it is not insignificant that the government plans to introduce criminal sanctions for those who fall foul of the new law.  With such sanctions in place, the new legislation may well bring about a genuine culture change within public bodies which have in the past been seen by many to be all too reluctant to co-operate and shine a light on their own failings.