The quiet clauses: how the Hillsborough Law could reshape inquests
Inquiries Perspective
Jon Clements, Chief Executive
Charlotte Phillips, Partner (Communication)
22 October 2026
Most commentary on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, now before the Lords, has focused on the duty of candour and the new criminal offences. In the first of these two pieces we looked at position statements. This one looks at inquests, where two of the Bill's quieter clauses arrive together: non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families, and position statements that would move from a request to a requirement.
What the Bill would require
At present, legal aid for families at inquests is confined largely to Article 2 cases and those of wider public interest, and only around 200 to 400 inquests a year are legally aided. The Bill would provide it without a means test wherever a public authority is an interested person. It would also require public authorities to instruct lawyers only so far as is necessary and proportionate, and it sets an overriding objective that families are able to participate fully and effectively.
The scale is uncertain, because no national data is collected on how many inquests involve a public authority. The Ministry of Justice estimates between 4,200 and 11,400 a year. The Legal Aid Agency opened procurement for inquest providers in August.
Levelling the legal playing field
Lawyers call this equality of arms. Bereaved families have too often faced a well-resourced public body with little or no representation of their own. It remains a shocking fact that the grieving and traumatised Hillsborough families were only able to secure representation at the original inquests thanks to a community whip round. Represented families will now likely ask sharper questions, press harder on disclosure and potentially engage the media more effectively. That is the purpose of the change.
Position statements: from request to requirement
The Bill would also require a public body that is an interested person to provide a position statement, setting out its position on matters relevant to the coroner's investigation.
An inquest has no equivalent of the opening statements made at an inquiry. Interested persons do not set out a case, and the rules bar them from addressing the coroner on the facts. Even so, some coroners already ask organisations for position statements, setting out their stance on the facts and acknowledging any failings. That practice has grown, but it is discretionary and nothing obliges an organisation to comply. The Bill would turn a request into a legal obligation, to be met without favouring the organisation's own position.
A routine inquest begins to look like a small inquiry
Put legal aid, position statements and the wider duty of candour together, and a routine inquest involving a hospital, a prison or a police force may begin to resemble a small public inquiry.
Inquests do not publish evidence in the way inquiries do, so a position statement may be less visible there. But open justice applies to coroners' courts, and there is a presumption in favour of giving journalists access to material referred to in a hearing. Our experience supporting inquiries and inquests for more than decade suggests this will be the media’s starting point; reporters are going to ask for position statements. More broadly, a greater number of inquests are likely to be reported, and reported in more depth, putting more pressure on coroners teams to meet this demand.
Are coroners ready?
Coroners' offices are equipped for the occasional high-profile case. Are they ready for sustained, routine press interest? Open justice depends on practical things. Who accredits journalists, and on what basis? Who manages them at court on the day? How will requests for evidence and documents, including position statements, be handled, and how quickly? Are there facilities from which reporters can file accurately and contemporaneously? Our experience supporting inquiries and inquests tells us having the right preparation, capability and capacity in advance is critical, especially when families are sharing pen portraits of the people they have lost. Inquiries have become used to finding themselves under scrutiny. It's entirely possible that inquests will increasingly experience this too.
More demands on institutions
One NHS mental health trust reports handling 150 to 190 inquests a year. If families are represented in most of them, and a position statement is required in each, an inquest is likely to become a more searching process. Planning how to communicate openly with families, staff and the public around each one may need to become standard practice, and not something reserved for the exceptional case.
What to do now
Coroners and their teams should settle their approach to media access, accreditation, facilities and requests for position statements before the volume rises. Public bodies that appear regularly at inquests should prepare too, so they are not caught on the hop (we have written about this in Part 1). They can decide who owns the position statement for each inquest, who reads it with families in mind, and how staff will be supported and kept informed. They can train the people most likely to be involved, and work through realistic scenarios before they are needed.
None of this is a bad thing
Nothing here is an argument against the Bill. A family that has lost someone should not have to face the state alone. A better-resourced, better-reported inquest asks more of everyone involved, and that is the point.
The answer to that scrutiny is not to bob, weave or spin. It is for leaders to face the facts, own them, and explain them plainly and humanely to families, staff and the public. Organisations that commit to that now, before anything has gone wrong, will serve the public better.
