The ‘Hillsborough Law’, senior leaders and prevention of critical harm

Section 13 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill introduces a new offence for senior leaders failing to prevent critical harm, carrying up to 14 years’ imprisonment. It significantly expands personal liability, demanding proactive governance and compliance across public bodies.

What is the Public Office Accountability Bill? 

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill also known as the 'Hillsborough Law' was introduced in the House of Commons on 16 September 2025. It seeks to address longstanding concerns regarding public accountability, particularly in light of high-profile scandals such as the Hillsborough disaster, the Grenfell Tower fire, and the Windrush scandal. 

The Bill aims to ensure that public authorities and officials act with candour, transparency, and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations. It also requires public authorities to promote and maintain ethical conduct, candour, transparency and frankness within all parts of the authority. It is, therefore, very wide ranging and onerous. The Bill is currently at the committee stage, but is set to become law in 2026. 

Section 13: New Criminal Offence

Amongst many interesting parts of the draft legislation is Section 13, which seeks to introduce a new criminal offence for senior leaders of public bodies who fail to take reasonable steps to prevent death or serious injury. Liability arises where:

• The individual has a duty to prevent critical harm by virtue of their office.
• The individual knows, or ought to know, of this duty.
• The individual acts intentionally or recklessly, causing or risking critical harm, without reasonable excuse.

Conviction under Section 13 may result in up to 14 years’ imprisonment.

Many working in the regulatory sphere will be aware of similar duties on individuals under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA) and the offence of Gross Negligence Manslaughter. Those advising in this field will now need to cover this new offence under Section 13 with those individuals if they meet the requirements set out above. Interestingly, this new legislation is quite closely aligned with Section 37 – in that it deals with a risk of critical harm (not just death) and requires knowledge but, yet provides for a much stricter penalty in up to 14 years imprisonment.

At a time when we are seeing unprecedented scrutiny on senior leaders within the Water Industry, this appears to be another stick with which the Government are seeking to use to ensure those at the top are held personally responsible for the culture and governance that permeates through the organisation. With a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years, those leaders are certainly going to think very carefully about the decisions they make. 

Whilst it will be a defence to show that there was a reasonable excuse for the act that led to the risk of critical harm, the pressure, scrutiny and context of the decision making that leads to the act is going to be at fever pitch. 

How authorities and public officials protect themselves in these circumstances will be very much at the top of the agenda as the legislation comes into force next year.

Key implications 

• Expanded Scope of Responsibility: The Bill applies to those who, by virtue of their office, have a duty to prevent critical harm. It covers not only intentional acts but also reckless behaviour and omissions, broadening the circumstances under which leaders may be held accountable.
• Alignment with Existing Legislation: Section 13 is closely aligned with Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the offence of Gross Negligence Manslaughter, but imposes stricter penalties and a wider duty, including risks of harm beyond death.
• Increased Scrutiny and Accountability: The Bill reflects a trend towards greater scrutiny of senior leaders, particularly in sectors such as the Water Industry. Leaders are expected to foster a culture of ethical conduct and governance throughout their organisations.
• Defence of Reasonable Excuse: Leaders may defend themselves by demonstrating that they had a reasonable excuse for their actions or omissions, but the burden of proof and the threshold for this defence are likely to be high.
• Potential for Organisational Conflict: The Bill may create internal conflicts, particularly regarding who is responsible for policing compliance within public bodies. This could lead to challenges in implementation and enforcement.

Potential challenges

• Ambiguity in Enforcement and Oversight: There is uncertainty regarding who will be responsible for policing compliance within public bodies. For example, questions arise as to whether the police will be expected to police themselves, which could lead to conflicts of interest and undermine effective enforcement.
• Risk of Organisational Conflict: The legislation may create internal tensions, especially where individuals are required to report or investigate colleagues. This could result in operational difficulties and ethical dilemmas within organisations.
• Review of Investigation Processes: Organisations will need to consider and review how they conduct their investigations, to ensure the necessary independence and avoid the potential for institutional and personal defensiveness that would cloud an investigation’s candour.
• Criticisms of Insufficient Provisions: The Bill has been criticised for lacking a legally binding duty of candour for public officials and for not providing equal legal funding during inquests and inquiries. These gaps may limit the effectiveness of the legislation in promoting transparency and accountability.
• Practicality of Preventing Cover-Ups: Despite its aims, critics argue that the Bill may not impose sufficient penalties for misleading the public, which could mean that cover-ups are not adequately deterred.
• Cultural and Governance Implications: Senior leaders will need to foster a culture of candour and ethical conduct throughout their organisations. This may require significant changes to existing practices, training, and governance structures.

Conclusion 

In summary, while the Bill seeks to address serious issues of accountability and ethical conduct within public bodies, significant challenges remain in ensuring its practical effectiveness. Ambiguities in enforcement, potential organisational conflicts, and criticisms regarding transparency highlight areas where further refinement may be necessary. 

Ultimately, the success of this legislation will depend not only on robust legal frameworks, but also on the commitment of senior leaders to drive meaningful cultural change within their organisations.

Simon Belfield is a Partner at DWF.