sas-consultancy-group

Reframing Duty of Candour: A Safeguarding Perspective on Justice Reform

Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:05:00 GMT

Executive Summary

Duty of candour is often framed as a legal obligation that arises after institutional failure. This paper argues that it should be understood more fundamentally as a safeguarding mechanism within justice-facing processes. Drawing on experience advising public inquiries, statutory reviews, and other investigative processes, we examine how the presence, or absence, of candour directly shapes levels of harm experienced by victims, bereaved families, and witnesses.

Where candour is delayed, defensive, or partial, legal processes can compound injury and erode trust. Where it is timely, proportionate and embedded, it functions as a protective control that reduces secondary harm and strengthens institutional legitimacy. As proposals such as the Public Office (Accountability) Bill seek to formalise candour within public law, there is an opportunity to recognise its safeguarding function explicitly and embed it accordingly.

Purpose

This paper reflects on how duty of candour operates in practice within legal and quasi-legal processes involving victims, bereaved individuals, and witnesses. It draws on safeguarding, trauma-informed advisory, and review work across public bodies and justice-facing environments. Our experience indicates that candour functions not only as a legal or ethical obligation, but as a structural safeguarding control capable of either mitigating or compounding harm within justice processes.

Background

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, introduced in September 2025 proposes the creation of a statutory duty of candour;

“Public authorities and public officials must at all times act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations.”

The proposed statutory duty of candour sits within a broader reform agenda commonly associated with the “Hillsborough Law”. The Bill reflects longstanding concerns arising from major public disasters and investigations, where families have experienced obstruction, defensiveness, or institutional self-protection in the aftermath of harm. It seeks to move beyond voluntary or professional expectations of openness by imposing a clear legal obligation on public authorities and officials to assist investigations fully and proactively, with potential consequences for those who deliberately mislead or withhold information. In doing so, it represents an attempt to recalibrate the balance of power between the state and bereaved families, victims and survivors, embedding candour as a systemic duty rather than a matter of discretion.

Duty of Candour - Beyond Compliance

It is important to recognise that duty of candour is not a new concept within public services. A statutory duty of candour has been embedded within health and social care settings for a number of years across the UK. In England, Regulation 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 places a legal obligation on providers to act in an open and transparent way with service users in relation to care and treatment, including informing individuals when notifiable safety incidents occur, offering an apology, and providing reasonable support. Similar statutory frameworks exist in Scotland and Wales.

Duty of candour can be framed narrowly as an obligation to be honest following error or failure. In practice, however, its presence or absence shapes how safe individuals feel when engaging with systems that hold significant power over them.

From a safeguarding perspective, candour:

influences whether individuals remain engaged with a process
affects levels of distress, retraumatisation, and mistrust
determines whether harm is compounded or mitigated over time

Where candour is delayed, partial, or defensively mediated, it frequently becomes a source of secondary harm, even when legal processes are otherwise operating as intended.

Candour as a Safeguarding Control

Across statutory reviews, inquiries, and internal investigations, recurring safeguarding risks associated with weak candour include:

delayed disclosure of critical information
families learning key facts indirectly or unexpectedly
overly legalised communication that obscures understanding
shifting or minimising institutional narratives

These dynamics can undermine the integrity of the process and increase emotional harm. In this sense, duty of candour operates as a safeguarding control: when it is weak or inconsistently applied, risk escalates within the process itself.

Trauma-Informed Practice Within Legal Processes

Much recent thinking has focused on how trauma-informed approaches can sit alongside legal processes through support services. Our experience suggests equal attention is needed on how trauma-informed and safeguarding principles operate within the processes themselves.

This does not require abandoning procedural fairness or evidential rigour. Rather, it involves:

proportionate and timely honesty
clarity about uncertainty and what is not yet known
avoiding unnecessary surprise
acknowledging institutional failure without deflection
actively mitigating power imbalances

Trauma-informed practice and duty of candour do not need to be in tension; when aligned, they strengthen legitimacy and trust.

Emerging Practice: Evidence That Change Is Possible

Recent developments, including the Justice Reforms (Scotland) Act, demonstrate that trauma-aware, victim-centred principles can be embedded within legal frameworks without undermining due process or accountability. Such reforms signal a shift toward recognising that how justice is delivered is inseparable from its legitimacy.

Similarly, proposals such as the Hillsborough Law reflect growing recognition that candour must be systemic, enforceable, and embedded within organisational and legal cultures.

Concluding Reflections

From a safeguarding and review perspective, duty of candour should be understood as:

a preventative safeguard against secondary harm
a relational obligation that shapes trust and engagement
a core component of legitimate and accountable public processes

Legal reform alone cannot eliminate institutional defensiveness. However, embedding candour as a structural expectation within public authority culture creates a measurable safeguard against secondary harm.

If justice is to retain legitimacy, it must not only reach sound conclusions; it must conduct itself in ways that reduce rather than reproduce harm. Duty of candour is fundamental to that aim.

Concluding Reflections

This paper has been prepared by SAS Consultancy Group, a UK-based consultancy specialising in trauma-informed practice, safeguarding, and psychological advisory support to public bodies, including public inquiries and statutory reviews.

Our work focuses on reducing secondary harm within investigative and accountability processes, strengthening institutional responses to victims and families, and embedding safeguarding principles within public sector organisations.

We can be contacted at contactus@sasconsultancygroup.co.uk

Mandatory Reporting Is Coming to England: What Organisations Need to Know

Wed, 17 Jun 2026 16:51:10 GMT

Mandatory Reporting Is Coming to England

After years of campaigning, consultation, and parliamentary debate, mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse is now coming to England. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, introducing for the first time a statutory duty for individuals working or volunteering with children to report child sexual abuse when they become aware of it. However, the duty is not yet in force. The Government must still introduce commencement orders, alongside supporting regulations and guidance, before the duty becomes legally enforceable.

For organisations across education, health, social care, the voluntary sector, and beyond, this represents a significant shift in the legal landscape. Understanding what the duty requires, who it applies to, and how it differs from what IICSA recommended is essential for anyone with safeguarding responsibilities.

The Background: From IICSA to Legislation

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published its final report in October 2022, making 20 specific recommendations for England. Among the most significant was the call to introduce mandatory reporting legislation requiring certain individuals to report child sexual abuse in defined circumstances.

IICSA further recommended that failure to report, where a child or perpetrator discloses abuse or where abuse is witnessed, should constitute a criminal offence, and that the duty should extend to situations where recognised indicators of sexual abuse are observed.

The journey from that recommendation to legislation was not straightforward. Attempts to legislate under the previous government fell when Parliament dissolved ahead of the 2024 general election. On 6 January 2025, the Home Secretary announced that the government would introduce mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in England through the Crime and Policing Act.

What the Law Will Require

The duty will apply to anyone taking part in relevant activity with children in England. A “relevant activity” means either a regulated activity, where the person working would be subject to DBS checks under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 or an extra class of activity which includes people who are involved with the family courts when they are making care orders or looking after children pursuant to those orders. Such as teachers, social workers, healthcare professionals, and those working in voluntary roles with children. It also includes religious teachers, if that religious teacher has regular contact with the child i.e. more than 3 days in any period of 30 days.

The duty requires those taking part in relevant activity to make a report if they are told about child sexual abuse, either by a child or an adult involved. In practical terms, a mandated reporter must make a report to the police or local authority children's social care in any of the following circumstances:

A child discloses abuse to them directly; A perpetrator discloses abuse to them; They personally witness abuse taking place; Where they see an image or hear an audio recording of what they suspect is a child sex offence; And where they see an image and they suspect that possession of that image may constitute a child sex offence.

A report must be made as soon as reasonably practicable to prevent the risk of further harm, but in circumstances which involve risk to the life of a child, this may be delayed for a maximum of 7 days in order to manage that risk.

It is important to note that the duty is for individuals, not organisations. Mandated reporters will have a statutory duty to report sexual abuse, including non-recent abuse. If an individual passes a disclosure to their Designated Safeguarding Lead, they retain personal responsibility for ensuring the concern has actually been referred on to statutory services. They cannot simply assume it has been dealt with.

What Happens If Someone Fails to Report?

This is one of the areas where the legislation diverges most significantly from the IICSA recommendations, and it is important for organisations to understand the distinction clearly.

The government has not attached criminal sanctions to a failure to report. However, those who fail to report could be referred to their professional regulator to consider their fitness to practice (where relevant).

A new criminal offence has, however, been created for anyone who attempts to deter an individual from making a report under the mandatory reporting duty. This is an important protection within the framework, recognising the very real risk that individuals in positions of authority may seek to suppress disclosures, whether to protect the reputation of an institution or for other reasons.

Where the Legislation Falls Short of IICSA's Vision

At SaS Consultancy Group, we welcome the introduction of a mandatory reporting duty as a meaningful step forward in child protection. However, it is important to be transparent about where the legislation diverges from what IICSA recommended, and what that means in practice.

In common with the previous government's proposals, and in contrast to IICSA's recommendations, the duty to report does not apply where a person observes recognised indicators of child sexual abuse. Failing to make a report when required is also not a criminal offence. This has led to concerns from some, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that the duty may not provide effective protection against child sexual abuse.

Some professional bodies, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, have expressed concern that the duty as written is not an effective way to help survivors of abuse, citing duplication of existing duties on clinicians and the risk that it could introduce significant inefficiencies into existing health pathways used to report concerns.

For those who worked closely with IICSA, as our partners did across multiple inquiry phases, the rationale behind the original recommendations was grounded in extensive evidence gathered directly from survivors, professionals, and institutions. The absence of a duty triggered by observed indicators, rather than direct disclosure alone, is a notable limitation. Children do not always disclose. Many survivors carry the consequences of abuse for years, or even decades, before speaking about it. A framework that relies primarily on disclosure narrows the protective reach of the law.

These are not reasons to disengage from the legislation. They are reasons to go beyond minimum compliance and invest in the kind of safeguarding culture that the legislation alone cannot create.

What This Means for Your Organisation

Regardless of where one stands on the scope of the legislation, the introduction of this duty creates clear obligations and immediate priorities for organisations across a wide range of sectors. The implementation period that follows Royal Assent is not a reason to delay preparation. It is the window in which organisations should be building the knowledge, systems, and culture needed to comply effectively and, more importantly, to genuinely protect children.

Identify your mandated reporters

The first step is to identify who within your workforce falls within the definition of relevant activity with children, and therefore holds the new statutory duty. This is not limited to professionals in obvious frontline roles. Volunteers working in regulated activity with children are also captured by the duty, meaning sports clubs, faith organisations, youth groups, and community organisations all need to take this seriously. Essentially, if your role already places you in a position of trust or responsibility with children, this duty will apply to you.

Invest in training

Every mandated reporter needs to understand what the duty requires of them, how to make a report, and how to respond sensitively to a disclosure in a way that does not compromise the child or the reporting process. Disclosure is a moment of profound vulnerability for a child, and the manner in which it is handled matters enormously. Training should not be treated as a tick-box exercise.

Review your safeguarding policies and procedures

Existing policies need to be reviewed and updated to reflect the new duty. This includes clarity on internal reporting pathways, the relationship between internal processes and statutory referrals, the protections in place for those making reports, and what your organisation expects of staff and volunteers from the point of disclosure onwards.

Prepare your leadership and governance

Trustees, senior leaders, and governance boards need to understand the implications of this legislation for organisational risk, culture, and accountability. Mandatory reporting is not solely a frontline issue. It requires strategic ownership at the highest level.

If you would like to discuss what mandatory reporting means for your organisation, we offer a free initial consultation with no obligation. Charity and non-profit organisations can also access our free safeguarding surgery on the first Thursday of every month. Get in touch with us today at contactus@sasconsultancygroup.co.uk .

What Is Trauma-Informed Practice and Why Does It Matter for Organisations?

Wed, 03 Jun 2026 18:25:17 GMT

Understanding Trauma

Trauma is a response to an experience or series of experiences that overwhelms an individual's ability to cope. It is not defined solely by the event itself, but by the lasting impact it has on a person's sense of safety, trust, and ability to function. Trauma can stem from a wide range of experiences, including abuse, neglect, bereavement, domestic violence, serious accidents, and exposure to distressing events in a professional capacity .

It is important to recognise that trauma is far more prevalent than many organisations assume. Research consistently shows that a significant proportion of the population has experienced at least one traumatic event in their lifetime. This has direct implications for how services, institutions, and workplaces interact with the people they serve and employ.

What Does Trauma-Informed Practice Actually Mean?

Trauma-informed practice is not a specific intervention or treatment. It is a framework for understanding how trauma affects individuals, and for ensuring that the structures, policies, and interactions within an organisation do not inadvertently cause further harm.

At its core, trauma-informed practice is built around six key principles, as identified in the foundational work of SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) and widely adopted in UK practice:

Safety - Ensuring that individuals feel physically and psychologically safe in their environment and interactions.
Trustworthiness and transparency - Being clear and consistent in communication and decision-making, so that individuals understand what to expect.
Choice - Supporting people to have control and autonomy over decisions that affect them.
Collaboration - Working with people rather than doing things to or for them, recognising the importance of shared power.
Empowerment - Focusing on strengths and building confidence, rather than reinforcing helplessness.
Cultural, historical and gender considerations - Recognising that trauma does not occur in a vacuum. Factors such as identity, culture and lived experience shape how trauma is experienced and how support should be offered.

The Difference Between Being Trauma-Aware and Being Trauma-Informed

One of the most important distinctions to understand is the difference between knowing about trauma and genuinely embedding a trauma-informed approach across an organisation.

Being trauma-aware means that individuals have some knowledge of how trauma affects behaviour and wellbeing. It is a starting point.

Being trauma-informed means that this understanding has been translated into the policies, procedures, training, leadership culture and day-to-day practices of an organisation. It requires sustained commitment, not a one-off training session.

Truly trauma-informed organisations continually reflect on how their systems and processes might create barriers, cause distress, or replicate harmful dynamics for those they serve. They take steps to address these issues at a structural level.

Why Does This Matter Beyond Clinical Settings?

Trauma-informed practice is not only relevant to health or social care. It has significant implications for any organisation that works with, employs, or serves people who may have experienced adversity. This includes public inquiries, government departments, local authorities, educational institutions, charities, and private sector organisations managing high-pressure or emotionally demanding work.

In the context of public inquiries, for example, many participants have experienced serious harm. Without a trauma-informed approach to engagement, hearings, communications and public-facing activity can inadvertently cause significant distress or re-traumatisation. At SaS Consultancy Group, our partners have worked directly with some of the UK's most significant statutory inquiries to design and implement trauma-informed frameworks that protect participants while enabling inquiries to fulfil their terms of reference.

Staff are often overlooked in this conversation. Organisations where employees are regularly exposed to distressing content or complex cases carry a significant duty of care. Secondary traumatic stress and burnout are well-documented risks in these environments. A trauma-informed approach addresses staff wellbeing as part of its core framework, not as an afterthought.

What Does Implementing a Trauma-Informed Approach Look Like in Practice?

Every organisation is different, and a genuine trauma-informed approach must be tailored to its context. However, there are several common areas of focus: Leadership and governance. Trauma-informed practice must be championed at a senior level. Without organisational buy-in from leadership, it risks being siloed within individual teams or reduced to a training exercise.

Policy and procedure review. Existing policies should be reviewed through a trauma-informed lens to identify where processes may inadvertently cause harm or create barriers.

Staff training and development. All staff, not only those in frontline roles, benefit from understanding the basics of trauma and how it may affect the people they work with. More specialist training is typically required for managers, supervisors, and those in client-facing positions.

Supervision and reflective practice. Regular opportunities for staff to process their experiences, receive support and reflect on their practice are essential in trauma-exposed environments.

Ongoing consultation and review. Implementing a trauma-informed approach is not a one-time project. It requires ongoing review, refinement and specialist input as the organisation evolves.

How SaS Consultancy Group Can Help

At SaS Consultancy Group, our partners and associates bring decades of direct experience in trauma-informed practice across some of the most complex and high-profile settings in the UK. We support organisations to design bespoke trauma-informed strategies, review existing policies and procedures, deliver specialist training, and provide ongoing clinical consultation and supervision.

Whether you are looking to develop a trauma-informed framework from the ground up, strengthen an existing approach, or access specialist support for staff working in emotionally demanding roles, we would be glad to talk through your needs.

We offer a free, no-obligation initial consultation to explore how we can support your organisation. If you'd like to learn more about out our Trauma-Informed Consultancy service click here .