header-logo header-logo

Hillsborough campaigners cheer inclusion of ‘life-changing’ law

25 July 2024
Issue: 8081 / Categories: Legal News , Health & safety , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
Lawyers and campaign groups have welcomed the inclusion of a ‘Hillsborough Law’ in the King’s Speech, and urged the government to set up an oversight body to ensure the recommendations of inquests and public inquiries are put into action

INQUEST, Grenfell United and COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice were among a coalition of more than 40 organisations writing to Prime Minister Keir Starmer this week, highlighting that recommendations are often ignored while any monitoring that exists is ‘fragmented and piecemeal’.

They wrote: ‘INQUEST proposes a solution: the establishment of a National Oversight Mechanism, which would be a new, independent body with the responsibility to collate, analyse and follow up on recommendations… and correct Elkan Abrahamson By law, organisations must respond to the coroner within 56 days. According to Oxford University’s Preventable Deaths Tracker, however, only 44% of Prevention of Future Death reports received expected responses, and only 2% met the deadline.

INQUEST director, Deborah Coles said: ‘We need a National Oversight Mechanism to address this shocking accountability gap and ensure that when recommendations are made following deaths they are not lost or left to gather dust.’

Lawyers and campaign groups hailed last week’s inclusion of the ‘Hillsborough Law’ (Public Authority (Accountability) Bill) in the King’s Speech as ‘life-changing’. The Bill creates a legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials to tell the truth and proactively cooperate with official investigations and inquiries. Failure to comply would become a criminal offence. Bereaved people would receive publicly funded legal representation.

Solicitor Elkan Abrahamson, director, Broudie Jackson Canter, who co-drafted the Bill with Pete Weatherby KC, Garden Court North, said: ‘Public inquiries, inquests and investigations often fail to get to the truth because public authorities and officials cover-up what happened to protect themselves.’

Weatherby said he hoped the Bill ‘offers some comfort to the thousands of people who over decades have been denied justice, truth and accountability by the state that things might soon change. It is because of the struggles of so many that we stand on the brink of changing the law.’ 

Issue: 8081 / Categories: Legal News , Health & safety , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll