Politics Home Article | Ministers Warned Hillsborough Law Could Delay Justice For Victims

5 min read49 min

Last month, a group of Labour MPs forced the government to withdraw the Public Office (Accountability) Bill — widely known as the Hillsborough Law — from the parliamentary agenda after campaigners complained that its scope was too narrow.

It includes a duty of candour, which obliges public officials to tell the truth and be transparent during investigations into national disasters like Hillsborough.

In 1989, 97 Liverpool fans were crushed to death during a match against Sheffield Wednesday at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield. The families of the victims have fought for justice and police prosecutions ever since.

In December, an Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) report said twelve officers would have faced gross misconduct proceedings over their actions in the disaster if they were still serving. The report, which followed a 13-year IOPC investigation, described “fundamental failure” and a “concerted effort” by police to blame fans for what happened on 15 April 1989.

Starmer says the law will be remembered as “one of the great acts of this Labour government”. Those close to the PM say the legislation matters deeply to him. At last year’s Labour Party conference, he was introduced on stage by long-term Hillsborough campaigner, Margaret Aspinall, who lost her 18-year-old son at the disaster. 

As things stand, the proposed duty of candour does not extend to the intelligence services, as the government believes that doing so could undermine national security.

Labour MPs and campaigners have warned that this is insufficient and are pushing ministers to look again at the scope.

Anneliese Midgley, Labour MP for Knowsley, who once worked for Starmer, said the Bill couldn’t progress without the confidence of the Hillsborough families. “This is a real red line for many other colleagues and me,” she told PoliticsHome.

“There has got to be heads banged together, it cannot be beyond the wit of so many clever people to get something which is workable.”

At the same time, however, lawyers are warning that the Hillsborough Law, while well-intentioned, could effectively create what they describe as a new legal industry, slowing down justice, rather than speeding it up.

Under the draft Bill, bereaved relatives would qualify for free legal aid at inquests, to ensure that they have the same legal representation as public bodies. Ministers say that wider access, also described as ‘parity of arms’, is essential for fairness and creating a level playing field.

However, government officials privately admit that the cost implications for departments will be significant. They point to the example that coroners’ inquests are funded by local authorities, whose budgets are already under pressure.

The first Hillsborough inquest was the longest in British legal history at the time, lasting more than a year. On that occasion, all families were represented by a single lawyer, whereas the Hillsborough Law would grant legal representation to each victim family.

Michael Wills, who sat on the independent Hillsborough inquiry, believes “there is no way” that the government will work through these questions quickly.

“They [ministers] are going to argue, and then what’s going to happen is the officials will get together quickly, then they’ll argue. Then they’ll go away, they’ll go back to ministers. Then the ministers will meet. Then it will go to the Prime Minister,” he told PoliticsHome. 

“How long is this going to take before they even start with the legal aid?”

Others worry about the wider impact the law could have on how Whitehall works.

Oliver Carroll, Legal Director at Bird & Bird, told PoliticsHome he is concerned that by “increasing administrative pressures and the risk of litigation against public bodies”, the legislation will lead to more cautious government decision-making.

Maria Eagle, Labour MP for Liverpool Garston and herself a lawyer, said it would be wrong to view her profession as the key to delivering justice for victims of state-related tragedies like Hillsborough.

“I’m not against people getting legal representation when it matters to them,” she said.

“But the idea that that is what solved Hillsborough is a delusion. The idea that if only there had been more lawyers at an earlier stage, Hillsborough wouldn’t have gone wrong, is just refuted by the facts.

“It wasn’t any legal process that got to the truth of Hillsborough. It was a non-legal process, the Hillsborough independent panel. It was a transparency process that had no lawyers involved. The thing that held up the families getting to the truth was legal actions that went wrong and didn’t work.”

A government spokesperson said: “This Hillsborough disaster will remain in our national consciousness for its tragedy and disgraceful injustice.

“Our legislation will right these wrongs, changing the balance of power so the state can never hide from the people it is supposed to serve, and making the police, intelligence agencies and the whole of government more scrutinised than they have ever been.

“As we have done throughout this process, we are taking the time to get this right — working with families and campaigners to create a Bill that is testament to their decades of campaigning, while never compromising on national security.”