Keir Starmer is criminalising lying in politics. Why isn’t the whole world talking about it?

Keir Starmer’s Government is, for the first time in modern democratic history, making deliberately Misleading The Public a criminal offence for Government Ministers, and yet nobody has broken the story yet.

Why has this not been widely noticed?

Most public discussion of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill (commonly referred to as the “Hillsborough Law”) has focused on the Duty of Candour and its origins in the Hillsborough disaster.

That focus is understandable. But it has had an unintended consequence:
the Bill’s most radical and far-reaching provision has remained largely invisible.

Hidden in plain sight is a new statutory criminal offence: Misleading the Public.

Who is writing this, and why?

My name is Marcus J. Ball. In 2019, I privately prosecuted Boris Johnson MP in Ball v Johnson for alleged Misconduct in Public Office. The aim of the case was to set a precedent criminalising lying in politics.

That case was halted before trial. What happened to it, and why, is the subject of a forthcoming documentary film.

I therefore approach this Bill from an unusual position:
I strongly support its underlying purpose, because it seeks to achieve through statute what my case was prevented from achieving through the courts.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcus-j-ball-b7110a26/

What does the Bill actually do?

The new offence: Misleading the Public
Clause 11 of the Bill creates a criminal offence where a public authority or public official:

• acts with the intention of misleading the public, or is reckless as to whether they do so; and
• knows, or ought to know, that their conduct is seriously improper; and
• engages in significant or repeated dishonesty (including falsehood, concealment, or obfuscation);
• in relation to matters of significant concern to the public;
• where that conduct causes, or risks causing, harm. On conviction on indictment, the offence carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment

Who does it apply to, and who does it not?

Under the Bill as currently drafted:
Covered

Government Ministers (including Cabinet Ministers individually)

• Government departments
• Police forces
• Civil servants
• Armed forces (subject to specific defences)
• Local authorities and NHS bodies Explicitly excluded

The House of Commons

• The House of Lords*
• The Scottish Parliament
• Senedd Cymru
• The Northern Ireland Assembly This exclusion is not accidental. Both Houses of Parliament are expressly carved out of the definition of “public authority”
  As a result, Ministers would be criminally liable for deliberate deception of the public, while MPs and Peers* would not.

What safeguards exist in the Bill?

This is not a casual or politically weaponisable offence. It contains multiple safeguards, including:

Prosecution only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions

• Parliamentary privilege remains untouched, the offence does not apply to speeches in Parliament

High evidential threshold: prosecutors must prove intentional or reckless deception, not mere error

Reasonable excuse defences

• Judicial oversight at every stage From direct experience, I can confirm that even where evidence appears substantial, cases involving alleged political deception can take months or years to investigate and assess.

How would this work in practice?

To clarify what the offence is, and what it is not, consider the following scenarios:

Scenario 1: A mistake

A Foreign Secretary inaccurately describes the benefits of a trade deal.
There is no evidence of intent to deceive.
No offence is committed. A correction or apology resolves the matter.

Scenario 2: A broken promise

A Defence Minister promises a procurement programme that later proves unaffordable.
This is a political failure, not a lie.
No offence is committed.

Scenario 3: Deliberate deception

A Prime Minister repeatedly makes false claims about the military capability and intent of another state, justifying a war that results in mass loss of life.
Evidence later emerges showing they knew the claims were false and advanced them regardless.
This is evidenced intentional deception on a matter of profound public concern.
This is the kind of conduct the offence would capture. Proven, abusive, deceit only, with clear damage to public trust.

Why this matters historically

If enacted, this would be the first time in modern democratic history that senior members of the executive face statutory criminal liability for deliberately misleading the public.

Polling over the last several years consistently shows strong public support for legal consequences where politicians knowingly lie. Public trust in democratic institutions has been deeply eroded by repeated episodes of deception.

Historically, the idea that political deception should attract criminal sanction is not new. One of the earliest recorded examples appears in ancient Athens, where democratic accountability included legal consequences for leaders who misled the public. The Second Trial of Miltiades is frequently cited as an early instance of a political figure being prosecuted not for personal misconduct, but for misleading the citizen body in the exercise of public power.

So why is this not being championed more loudly?

That question can only be answered by the Government.

Boris Johnson openly embraced lying in politics. Keir Starmer is criminalising it. One might reasonably expect that contrast to be articulated clearly and confidently. To date, it has not been.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill is the Government’s flagship legislation. It will reach Third Reading in the House of Commons on Monday 19th January. It will pass. The legal consequences of deliberately misleading the public will soon be written into statute.

What has yet to happen is a full public reckoning with what this represents: a fundamental shift in the relationship between political power and legal accountability. When that significance is properly understood, this will become a major public story. When it does, I will be ready to engage with it openly and in full.

Starmer publicly defended my prosecution against Boris Johnson in May, 2019. As former DPP he appears to have been aware of my case and what it was attempting to achieve. I feel that with this new law he is attempting to achieve similar objectives to my own.

What is wrong with the Bill’s current wording?

There are issues. They are technical, legal, and consequential.
They deserve their own explanation and will be addressed separately.

Key links

• Public Office (Accountability) Bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4019
• Misleading the Public offence (Clause 11):
  See Chapter 3, Part 2 of the Bill
• Luke Myer MP’s amendment proposals: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0341/amend/public_office_rm_rep_0109lp.pdf
• Press release (Embargoed: 14 January 2026):
  “Will MPs vote to criminalise their own lies?” https://www.execprosec.com/blog/will-mps-vote-to-criminalise-their-own-lies-commons-decision-today

Experts and contacts who know about this issue and are free to comment

• Marcus J. Ball — Private prosecutor in Ball v Johnson (2019), MJB@ExecProsec.com
• Jennifer Nadel — CEO, Compassion in Politics, jennifer.nadel@compassioninpolitics.com, 07970 870026
• Luke Myer MP — Sponsor of amendments extending the offence to MPs and Peers, luke.myer.mp@parliament.uk, 077805 267177 (Carolanne Bernard, Parliamentary Comms for Luke Myer

Come to the Big Debate

Are you a journalist, MP, or Peer seeking a clear, informed briefing on the proposed Misleading the Public offence?

I am hosting a focused briefing and discussion at The Conduit. A limited number of places remain.

Attendance is free, but capacity is strictly capped at 150. Please register only if you are confident you can attend. Register here: https://share-eu1.hsforms.com/1rb1ngjJOTtWqvC-Xme8qgQ2b2ovr

BRIEFER, NOT FOR RELEASE, MARCUS J BALL 07917086231