spen666
Well-Known Member
The government are planning to introduce the so called Hillsborough Law
They say legislation will be brought before next April to enforce a legal duty of candour on public authorities who are subject to investigations following major disasters.
On the face of it, that seems to be a good thing, but there is potentially a very serious breach of Human Rights legislation that may come into play. This does not seem to have been mentioned in any of the discussion.
If a public authority have a duty of candour, then the only way this can be complied with is if the individual employees of that public body are also under a duty of candour - ie the employees must tell the truth to their employer.
I do not see how this fits with the right not to self incriminate and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If an employee is forced to tell the truth- this takes away the right of silence, and so an employee of a public authority would be forced to self incriminate themselves. This undermines the basic presumption of English law.
It may be that they introduce a protection such as the one relating to the use of their S2 Powers by the SFO. If the SFO serve you with a S2 notice, it is a criminal offence not to answer their questions. You cannot no comment the interview. However, in that case, anything you say in the interview generally cannot be used against you in any subsequent trial.
There has been no mention of any such protewction in the briefings around the Hillsborough Law. It may be there is similar protection, if there is not however, I can see the legislation failing under challenges under the Human Rights Act
What seems like a good idea for legislation is often fraught with difficulties. Once the right not to self incriminate is removed in one category, you can be sure it will be expanded into other cases
EDIT - the 2017 Bill introduced by Andy Burnham does provide a protection again self incrimination for an individual. This may to a large extent render the legislation ineffective in some cases, as without those who committed the alleged wrongdoing coming forward, there is no difference to the current position
For me, the jury is out as to whether any such law is mere grandstanding or it does change the position in practice. I look forward to seeing the legislation and how it is implemented in practice
They say legislation will be brought before next April to enforce a legal duty of candour on public authorities who are subject to investigations following major disasters.
On the face of it, that seems to be a good thing, but there is potentially a very serious breach of Human Rights legislation that may come into play. This does not seem to have been mentioned in any of the discussion.
If a public authority have a duty of candour, then the only way this can be complied with is if the individual employees of that public body are also under a duty of candour - ie the employees must tell the truth to their employer.
I do not see how this fits with the right not to self incriminate and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If an employee is forced to tell the truth- this takes away the right of silence, and so an employee of a public authority would be forced to self incriminate themselves. This undermines the basic presumption of English law.
It may be that they introduce a protection such as the one relating to the use of their S2 Powers by the SFO. If the SFO serve you with a S2 notice, it is a criminal offence not to answer their questions. You cannot no comment the interview. However, in that case, anything you say in the interview generally cannot be used against you in any subsequent trial.
There has been no mention of any such protewction in the briefings around the Hillsborough Law. It may be there is similar protection, if there is not however, I can see the legislation failing under challenges under the Human Rights Act
What seems like a good idea for legislation is often fraught with difficulties. Once the right not to self incriminate is removed in one category, you can be sure it will be expanded into other cases
EDIT - the 2017 Bill introduced by Andy Burnham does provide a protection again self incrimination for an individual. This may to a large extent render the legislation ineffective in some cases, as without those who committed the alleged wrongdoing coming forward, there is no difference to the current position
For me, the jury is out as to whether any such law is mere grandstanding or it does change the position in practice. I look forward to seeing the legislation and how it is implemented in practice
Last edited:
