The Public Office (Accountability) Bill imposes a statutory “duty of candour and assistance” on public authorities and public officials when their acts or information are relevant to inquiries and investigations. It requires notification, provision of information and position statements on direction from the inquiry chair or investigating coroner, and makes intentional or reckless breaches criminally punishable.
The duty can be extended by regulation to other kinds of investigations and specifically includes tailored arrangements for intelligence services.
The Bill also requires public authorities to adopt and publish codes of ethical conduct, creates an offence for public authorities or officials who intentionally or recklessly mislead the public where the conduct is “seriously improper,” and replaces the common-law offence of misconduct in public office with two statutory offences for abusing public office (including a separate offence for breaches of duties to prevent death or serious injury). It packages practical participation measures for affected persons at UK inquiries and inquests (including narrower use of legal representatives by authorities and targeted non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved family members where a public authority is an interested person).
At a Glance
What It Does
Imposes a continuous duty of candour and assistance for inquiries and certain investigations, empowers inquiry chairs and coroners to issue written compliance directions, and criminalises intentional or reckless non‑compliance. It requires public authorities to adopt codes of ethical conduct and establishes new offences for misleading the public and abusing public office.
Who It Affects
Central and local government departments, NHS bodies, police and policing bodies, schools and further education providers, most public-facing bodies, office-holders and many officials—plus contractors and service providers who had significant public responsibilities in an incident. Intelligence services are covered but with narrow notification carve-outs and bespoke record-keeping duties.
Why It Matters
The Bill elevates inquiry-facing candour into statutory duty, replaces a century-old common-law offence with clearer statutory crimes, and rebalances how public bodies participate at inquiries—shaping disclosure practice, criminal exposure for senior officials, and legal aid/representation norms at inquests.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Bill establishes a single, inquiry-facing duty called the duty of candour and assistance. That duty has three core elements: (1) a notification obligation to tell the person leading an inquiry or investigation when the authority or official has acts or information likely to be relevant; (2) an obligation to provide information and assistance, including position statements, corrections of earlier errors and further clarification on direction from the chair or investigator; and (3) a managerial duty on the individual in charge of an authority to secure compliance by the organisation.
The duty applies automatically to inquiries and a set of specified investigations listed in the schedules and may be extended by regulation to other investigative processes (criminal, regulatory or service quality investigations) subject to safeguards on privilege and national security.
Operationally, the duty is triggered and shaped by a written compliance direction from the person leading the inquiry (chair, senior coroner or procurator fiscal). Compliance directions must be in writing, set out terms of reference and may specify the form, timing and content of disclosures (including dispensing with a position statement in limited circumstances).
Where a direction is given, failure to comply becomes a criminal offence when the accused intended to impede the inquiry’s objectives, or—for specified failures—was reckless as to whether the omission would do so. The Bill also imposes limits: the duty cannot require breach of statutory prohibitions or the disclosure of protected intelligence information; for intelligence services the notification element is curtailed but the services must maintain internal records and procedures to capture relevant acts and information.Separately, the Bill creates an offence of misleading the public by a public authority or official where the actor intends or is reckless about misleading the public and the act is “seriously improper.” “Seriously improper” is tested both objectively (reasonable person) and by reference to factors such as significant or repeated dishonesty, actual or potential harm and a significant departure from proper exercise of functions.
The Bill abolishes the common-law offence of misconduct in public office and replaces it with two statutory crimes: (a) using office to obtain benefit or cause detriment (max 10 years) and (b) failing in a duty to prevent death or serious injury where the breach is a marked departure from expected standards (max 14 years). Both statutory offences require consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed.On participation and process, the Bill requires public authorities to adopt and publish codes of ethical conduct (covering candour, disciplinary consequences, protected disclosures and complaint routes) and gives chairs/senior coroners powers and duties to secure parity for affected persons at inquiries.
It instructs public authorities to engage lawyers only when necessary and proportionate—taking account of affected persons’ comparative means, disclosure obligations and proportionality—and creates routes to raise concerns about authority conduct and to require a formal response. Finally, the Bill introduces narrow legal‑aid reforms: bereaved family members may receive legal aid at inquests without a means test where a public authority is an interested person.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The inquiry-facing duty is operationalised by a written ‘compliance direction’ the chair or investigator must give as soon as reasonably practicable; the direction can specify form, timing and content of disclosures and may be varied.
Criminal liability for failing to comply with the duty requires (a) intent to impede the inquiry or (b) recklessness for failures to comply with obligations imposed by direction; summary and indictable penalties range up to 2 years’ imprisonment on indictment.
The Bill abolishes the common-law offence of misconduct in public office and substitutes two statutory offences: misuse of office for benefit/detriment (up to 10 years) and breach of a duty to prevent death or serious injury where conduct falls far below expectation (up to 14 years); prosecutions require DPP consent.
The offence of ‘misleading the public’ applies to public authorities/officials who intend or are reckless about misleading the public and whose conduct is objectively ‘seriously improper’—a composite test that requires significant dishonesty or harm and a significant departure from proper exercise of functions.
Where a public authority is an ‘interested person’ at an inquest, bereaved family members can obtain legal aid without a means test; concurrently the Bill requires authorities to limit instructing lawyers to what is necessary and proportionate, weighing affected persons’ access to representation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Purpose: make candour a statutory norm
Part 1 frames the Act’s object: to ensure public authorities and officials perform functions with candour, transparency and frankness. That single-statement purpose anchors later criminal and regulatory measures and is intended to guide interpretation where the Act touches on competing interests like national security or devolved competence.
Duty of candour and assistance for inquiries and investigations
This chapter defines the duty’s elements (notification, assistance, position statements, corrections) and makes the duty operationally conditional on compliance directions issued by the person leading the inquiry or investigator. It includes procedural safeguards: directions must be written, tied to terms of reference, can be tailored, and cannot require breach of statute or privileged material. Intelligence services have a narrow notification carve‑out but must have internal arrangements to record and surface relevant acts and information.
Codes of ethical conduct and national guidance
Public authorities must adopt published codes of ethical conduct that set standards (selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, leadership), explain expectations for candour, set disciplinary consequences and provide complaint and whistleblowing routes. An ‘appropriate national authority’ may issue guidance public authorities must have regard to. The code can withhold commercially sensitive or personally identifying material from publication.
Offence of misleading the public
This section criminalises acts by public authorities or officials that intentionally or recklessly mislead the public where the conduct is objectively ‘seriously improper’: the statutory test requires significant/repeated dishonesty or concealment, causation or risk of harm, and a material departure from proper exercise of functions. There are explicit carve-outs for devolved matters, journalistic activity by recognised publishers, and defences for intelligence or armed forces activity and reasonable excuse.
Statutory misconduct offences and abolition of the common law offence
Part 3 replaces the common law offence of misconduct in public office with two statutory offences: using public office to obtain benefit or cause detriment (10-year maximum) and breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury where conduct falls far below what is reasonably expected (14-year maximum). Both require DPP consent for prosecutions. The schedules set out who counts as a ‘holder of public office’ across a long list of public roles and bodies; remuneration is irrelevant to capture.
Participation rights and proportionality at inquiries and inquests
This part mandates amendments and rules to promote parity for affected persons (particularly bereaved family members) at UK inquiries and inquests. It directs public authorities to limit engagement of lawyers to what is necessary and proportionate, requires mechanisms to raise and respond to concerns about authority conduct, imposes an overriding objective in inquiry and coroner rules to facilitate participation, and creates targeted legal aid—without a means test—for bereaved family members at inquests where a public authority is an interested person.
Crown, territorial extent, regulation-making and commencement
Part 5 binds the Crown but preserves the Crown itself from criminal liability (agents and servants remain liable). It sets differential geographic extent (some criminal offences apply only to England & Wales), establishes the ‘appropriate national authority’ regime for regulations and guidance (with devolved consent rules), and gives broad power to make consequential and commencement regulations—important because much of the Bill’s scope depends on secondary instruments.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Bereaved family members and affected persons — the Bill strengthens their ability to participate in inquiries and inquests, guarantees tailored legal aid at inquests where a public authority is interested, and creates duties on authorities to assist and avoid adversarial obstruction.
- Inquiry chairs, coroners and investigators — formal powers to issue written compliance directions and to demand structured assistance should reduce tactical non‑disclosure and improve the quality and timeliness of evidence.
- Public interest litigators, watchdogs and oversight bodies — clearer statutory duties and criminal offences broaden enforcement tools and give concrete standards for assessing official conduct.
- Members of the public — greater statutory expectations of candour, published ethical codes and a standalone offence for misleading the public raise transparency standards for decisions affecting public welfare.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public authorities (central, local, NHS, police, schools, etc.) — increased compliance and disclosure obligations, the administrative cost of position statements, record-keeping, code maintenance, and potential litigation/defence costs where criminal investigations follow.
- Senior officials and office-holders — expanded personal exposure through managerial duties and statutory offences increases risk of criminal investigation, and may lead to more cautious decision-making or greater use of legal advice.
- Intelligence and security bodies — operational burden from the requirement to maintain records and internal procedures, and the need to navigate national security carve-outs while cooperating with inquiries.
- Public prosecution and court services — DPP-consent requirement, new criminal offences and potential cross-jurisdictional cases will increase demand on prosecutorial resources and may create prioritisation pressures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The Bill forces a trade-off between two legitimate objectives: improving accountability by making candour enforceable, and protecting the practical ability of public bodies—and particularly security and operationally sensitive functions—to do their jobs without exposing genuinely sensitive information or creating a culture of defensive non‑engagement. The statute offers procedural safeguards and carve‑outs, but those same safeguards make the law fact‑sensitive and likely to generate litigation over boundaries rather than straightforward compliance.
The Bill’s central aim is clear—make candour an enforceable expectation—but that very criminalisation creates implementation risks. Turning non‑cooperation into a potential offence imports criminal-law mens rea questions (intent versus recklessness) into an administrative disclosure context.
That raises two risks: a chilling effect where officials over-redact or decline to engage for fear of prosecution, and evidential complexity for prosecutors asked to prove obstructive intent against organisational defendants. The DPP consent requirement for the most serious offences mitigates some prosecutorial overreach but concentrates decision-making and could slow responses to urgent misconduct.
Another set of trade-offs concerns national security and operational independence. The Act covers intelligence services but carves out notification of intelligence information; it compensates with record-keeping duties.
How courts, inquiry chairs and prosecutors will balance the need to protect security‑sensitive material against the public interest in disclosure is unresolved. The Bill also anticipates extensive secondary legislation and guidance: definitions of “public authority”, the scope of “public functions” and what counts as “seriously improper” will be shaped in regulation, guidance and judicial decisions—creating transitional uncertainty for authorities expected to comply from day one.
Finally, the Bill reorders participation at inquiries by limiting authorities’ use of counsel; this aims to level the playing field for affected persons but could complicate the conduct of complex, technical inquiries where authority representation has substantive utility.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.