Reframing Duty of Candour: A Safeguarding Perspective on Justice Reform

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