Broudie Jackson Canter solicitor and a director of the Hillsborough Law Now Campaign, Elkan Abrahamson, has penned a piece in The Times to discuss how the newly announced inquiry into the horrendous murders of three girls in Southport may well be the first to adhere to the ‘Hillsborough Law’.
Elkan has noted that the British public may feel a sense of déjà vu following the home secretary's announcement of the public inquiry into the failures that allowed a violent teenager, who was already known to the authorities, to commit the murders in Southport. He said:
“Few will disagree with the need for an inquiry. But many remain sceptical as to what it will achieve when so many public inquiries before it have failed. Public inquiries intend to uncover the truth — but all too often they fail, as public authorities and officials move to protect themselves. However, the Southport inquiry could be the first held under the Hillsborough Law, which would impose a legal duty of candour on public authorities to tell the truth and proactively co-operate with the inquiry.”
The Hillsborough Law, named after the 1989 Hillsborough stadium disaster and the result of the two-year long inquiry to find justice for the 97 people that died as a result, ensures that organisations and officials that mislead or obstruct investigations for inquiries could potentially face criminal sanctions. The British government has pledged to introduce this legislation before parliament prior to the Easter recess.
A legal duty of candour would require public bodies to set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the inquiry, Elkan explained in the article:
“Anyone who has attended an inquiry will be familiar with the scene of multiple public bodies refusing to take the slightest iota of responsibility. They will also know how dealing with this incurs so much time and cost, not to mention the great distress it causes to the individuals and families involved.”
Elkan points to the response of security services to the Manchester Arena Inquiry as an example of this. The UK’s domestic counterintelligence and security agency, MI5, believed that no failures had occurred in the lead up to the bombing. However, the inquiry determined that “there was a realistic possibility that actionable intelligence could have been obtained which might have led to actions preventing the attack.”
MI5 did, then, acknowledge that “had we managed to seize the slim chance we had, those impacted might not have experienced such severe loss and trauma.”
Elkan believes that earlier admission of responsibility would have:
“Spared the bereaved and injured from the trauma of unnecessary hearings, thereby significantly reducing the costs and duration of the inquiry.
“Under a legal duty of candour, while evidence would still need to be held privately where national security required it, the security services would be obligated to admit their failings from the outset. Should a public body fail in its duty of candour, there would be criminal sanctions of up to two years of imprisonment, which should serve to concentrate the attention of public servants.”
At Broudie Jackson Canter, we can give legal advice that you can rely on. This includes areas such as Civil Liberties, Immigration, and Criminal Matters. If you think we can help you, get in touch today. Please give us a call, request a call back or make an enquiry.