There’s a striking line in the latest Angiolini Inquiry report: the government should consider a wider Good Samaritan (or “duty to act”) law as part of a package to prevent sexually motivated attacks in public. The recommendation, which includes a timetable for ministers to look at the case by July 2026, has reignited a heated debate about what we expect of bystanders, and what the law should practically require.
Why now? The call has been championed publicly by campaigners connected to recent tragedies. Notably, Farah Naz, the aunt of Zara Aleena, has urged a legal duty on passers-by to at least report or try to help when someone is clearly in danger. The Angiolini report explicitly flags Naz’s campaign as part of the case for considering a statutory change.
What the Angiolini report actually recommends
The inquiry does not demand immediate criminalisation; rather, it asks the government to think through the evidence and potential impact of a broader duty to act, and to weigh how such a law might interact with prevention measures, policing and public education. The phrasing is cautious (“consider the arguments”) but it marks a clear shift: the inquiry wants the state to explore whether law can help nudge bystander behaviour and reduce opportunities for attacks.
How similar laws work elsewhere
There are two different legal concepts at play internationally. “Good Samaritan” statutes in many jurisdictions (including much of the United States and Canada) typically protect people who intervene, shielding them from civil liability if they try to help. By contrast, in countries such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and parts of Scandinavia, a “duty to rescue” (or duty to report) can criminalise failure to assist or call for help in specified circumstances. The practical detail varies widely: some laws require only a phone call to emergency services while others impose fines or (rarely) custodial sentences for deliberate non-assistance.
How a UK version might work
If Parliament wanted to follow Angiolini’s suggestion it would face design choices: would a duty require only that a bystander contact emergency services (lower threshold), or demand physical intervention (risking danger to the helper)? Would there be carve-outs where acting would put the helper at real risk? And how would the law avoid perverse outcomes, for example encouraging poorly prepared interventions that make situations worse? The inquiry sensibly stresses that any change must be paired with public education, clear guidance and protections for helpers.
Government response so far
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said the government will “carefully consider” the inquiry’s recommendations and stressed the importance of acting to make public spaces safer for women, while also flagging that this is a complex area requiring thoughtful policy design. That cautious tone suggests ministers recognise political and practical pitfalls, and may favour piloting education and protection measures before leaping to criminal sanctions.
Where this leaves us
The Angiolini recommendation has moved the Good Samaritan debate from the margins into mainstream policy. Whatever Parliament decides, meaningful change will require more than a new law: it needs clear guidance, training, public messaging and safeguards so that ordinary people feel able and protected to step up. The nation must now ask: do we want a legal nudge to protect the vulnerable, or only more words?
Image source: BBC