Hillsborough Law
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill – also know as the
Hillsborough Law – is currently working its way through parliament. If passed it will place a number
responsibilities on holders of public office and on public authorities. The preamble to the Bill describes it thus:
Impose
a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour,
transparency and frankness; to make provision for the enforcement of that duty
in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; to require public
authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all
parts of the authority; to create an offence in relation to public authorities
and public officials who mislead the public; to create further offences in
relation to the misconduct of persons who hold public office and to abolish the
common law offence of misconduct in public office; to make provision enabling
persons to participate at inquiries and investigations where the conduct of
public authorities may be in issue; and for connected purposes. (The Public Office (Accountability) Bill Preamble
(i)
Probably the best known aspect of the Bill is to create a
duty of candour. This is a difficult
thing to legislate for and the parliamentary drafters have worked hard to frame
a Bill that lives up to the policy requirements. Practically this will require a major culture
shift in some organisations – not least of all in policing. There is much to be done to prepare for the new
law. If it works it could change the
nature of the relationship between police forces and inquiries, and, indeed,
with the general public.
The Bill seeks to create various offences. In particular it will abolish the existing
common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office and will replace it with a
statutory offence with the same name.
As always with major new legislation it is necessary to
consider whether the provisions will apply to Non Home Department Police Forces
(NHDPFs).
In this case the answer is (fairly) clear. Clause 23 of the Bill extends the definition
of police force to include, for the purposes of this legislation only, the British
Transport Police (BTP), the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) and the Ministry
of Defence Police (MDP) and their respective authorities (the Secretary of
State in the case of MDP). Schedule 2 of
the Bill includes employees of public authorities, which includes those who
hold an office under an authority without being an employee (i). All such persons are to be included within
the definition of a ‘public official’ with all the duties and responsibilities
as such.
No mention is made of the other NHDPFs. I suspect they have been forgotten. There is a possibility that the Bill may be
amended if anybody notices. It is also
possible that Clause 4 of the Bill (which relates to those who have Health and
Safety responsibilities) could, just about, bring some of the employers of NHDPFs
into play.
The construction and use of language in parliamentary bills
is a highly technical subject of which I have no specialist knowledge. It could be that the government does not wish
the smaller NHDPFs to be included. Use
of the descriptor ‘constable’ would, if used, bring all police officers into
the scope of the legislation.
I will write a longer, more general, commentary on this legislation
in another place, but will return to this blog if there are any changes which
touch on NHDPFs.
Philip Trendall
March 2026
(i)
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4019
[Viewed 17 March 2026]
(ii)
Constables in Home Department forces are not ‘employees’
whereas constables in NHDFs are both office holders and constables. The distinction is of no real consequence but
is something that is often mentioned by the Police Federation of England and
Wales.
No comments:
Post a Comment