Why corporate manslaughter

This act was seen as a major milestone because it was designed to overcome the limitations of the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter, as applied to companies and other incorporated bodies. There has, however, been a great deal of scrutiny over the act.

That said, in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, police said they had "reasonable grounds" to suspect that corporate manslaughter may have been committed, but there has not been a single arrest.

The prosecution must prove that, but for the alleged gross breach of duty, the deceased would have survived, or at least that they would not have died at that time or in those circumstances. Section 28 makes express provision in respect of territorial jurisdiction. The section also makes provision for British-registered vessels and for ships in UK territorial waters.

Section 28 very clearly focusses on the place where harm results, not the location where the breach of duty occurred. Even if a breach of duty occurred within England and Wales, there is no jurisdiction if the harm occurs to a person overseas.

For example, a holiday company could not be held liable for the death of a customer abroad even if organisational or management failures at its offices in the UK had played a substantial part in a breach of duty to the customer. In this respect, the scope of the Act is potentially narrower than the common law see R v Sheppard 1 Cr. In England and Wales the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is needed before a case of corporate manslaughter can be taken to court.

Every Crown Prosecutor may give consent and it is recommended that the file is endorsed with reference to the consent under section In a case where the evidential test is clearly met, it will usually be appropriate to proceed with a charge of Corporate Manslaughter as Corporate Manslaughter is an inherently serious offence.

There may also be evidence of a wider impact on the community, for example on the family of the deceased or on other employees. There is a strong public interest in securing corporate accountability for serious offending. A charge of Corporate Manslaughter will be more likely where there is evidence of a generalised failing within company management processes as opposed to distinct liability on the part of identifiable individuals. The evidence may indicate that the offence was due to the gross failings of identifiable directors or managers.

In such a case it may be more appropriate to charge the responsible individual s with gross negligence manslaughter rather than the corporate offence. This situation is more likely to arise in the case of small and micro-companies, where the whole or very largest part of the failing is the responsibility of one person whose personal activity represents a large part of the company's undertaking. In that situation, the justice of the case can best be met by prosecution of the individual s rather than of the company for the manslaughter offence.

The effective presentation and management of the case is a relevant consideration. There are significant differences in the legal elements of the offences. Financial circumstances can mean that the prosecution of a limited company becomes academic. A company may have become insolvent, or there may be clear evidence that it has little by way of net assets to pay a fine. Fines for health and safety offences involving death can be very substantial and sometimes the limiting factor is the financial resources of the company rather than the offence with which it is charged.

Charging decisions should be proportionate and proper regard should be had to the public expense of a prosecution. Notwithstanding financial circumstances, in an appropriate case it may nonetheless be in the public interest to proceed with a case of Corporate Manslaughter in order to ensure that the seriousness of an offence is properly marked. It is possible to set up an alert from Companies House and liaise with the HSE, who can register an objection with Companies House to the striking off of a company under criminal investigation and seeking dissolution.

In this regard, the following should be noted:. Decisions on charge are fact-specific and none of the above precludes a prosecution involving charges of both Corporate Manslaughter and individual gross negligence manslaughter if it is merited on the evidence in a particular case.

The evidence may clearly show gross failings on the part of individuals within the company as well overall failings of the organisation including its senior management. Many cases in which a charge of Corporate Manslaughter is under investigation will involve liaison with the Health and Safety Executive HSE , a local authority or specialist regulator.

Prosecutors may have to consider the inclusion of charges under the HSWA or health and safety regulations when charging Corporate Manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter or other related offences.

Section 19 provides that where an organisation is charged both with Corporate Manslaughter and HSWA offences, the jury may return a verdict on both or all charges.

Consideration should also be given to the charging and joinder of other defendants. It does not follow from a decision to charge an individual or company with manslaughter that other culpable individuals can or should escape liability for their own failings. Prosecutors should note that they have considered HSE policy and if HSE policy would ordinarily not suggest a prosecution, the rationale for prosecuting under the Code should be noted clearly.

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act impose two overarching duties on an employer, breach of which is an offence. The offences are concerned with the creation of a risk of harm.

Section 2 1 places a duty on every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of all his employees. Section 3 extends similar provisions for the protection of those other than employees who may be exposed to risks to their health and safety as a result of the employers 'undertaking'.

There is no limit on the application of this provision to other persons: they may for example be other people working in the undertaking eg. Note that the employer retains responsibility for his 'undertaking' even if he subcontracts performance, subject to taking reasonably practicable steps to ensure that the contractor does not expose non- employees to risk R v Associated Octel Co Ltd 1 WLR It is not necessary that the public was in fact put in danger; simply that the possibility of danger existed and the defendants had not done all that was reasonably practicable to prevent it R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum 1 WLR In R v British Steel 1 WLR it was held that the defendant could not escape liability by showing that, at a senior level, it had taken steps to ensure safety if, at the operating level, all reasonably practicable steps had not been taken.

Section 7 specifies the duty which is on an employee at work. It states that 'it shall be the duty of every employee while at work, to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions while at work'. As with Sections 2 and 3, a breach of the duty is an offence. However, the requirements of the section are very different. Whereas Sections 2 and 3 create a duty to ensure safety, an alleged breach of Section 7 involves an allegation of a failure to take reasonable care.

A charge under this section would have to specify the acts and omissions which are relied upon as breaches R v Beckingham [] EWCA Crim It is also important to have regard to the policy of the HSE see below. Breach of provisions of the health and safety regulations which are made under HSWA are also an offence.

This offence may be appropriate where individual gross negligence manslaughter cannot be proved but the director etc has a level of culpability that would justify a prosecution. Thus if the directors etc know that essential safety equipment is required but have failed to provide it, the company will have committed an offence under section 2 or section 3 and the directors will be guilty under this section.

Thus make a file note that you are giving the necessary consent under this section even if you have already given your consent to a prosecution under the CMCHA. In a prosecution under HSWA, it is for the defence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it was not reasonably practicable to have done more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty.

The Protocol describes the initial action to be taken by investigators following a work-related death, how the investigation should be managed, the decision making process, issues such as disclosure and the coroner and the mechanisms by which the signatory agencies should cooperate. In the interests of fairness and consistency of approach, this should form part of the overall assessment of the public interest at stage two of the Code test.

Prosecutors should bear in mind that the considerations for the CPS will be different. The cases of this nature which the CPS will encounter will usually involve either death or other very serious harm. In ordinary circumstances, a CPS Prosecutor will only be considering charges under the HSWA if she or he has already decided to charge another usually more serious criminal offence.

This may be a charge of manslaughter or Corporate Manslaughter, but the issue may also arise for example in cases involving causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving. The Code requires consideration to be given to the culpability of individual defendants. The regulatory objectives of the Health and Safety Executive are different from those of the police and CPS and differences of approach may be appropriate.

If a different approach has been taken, it is important to note why. Section of the IPC deals with the same. Section of the IPC deals with murder. Section A of the IPC deals with the crime of causing the death of a person by negligence. This crime is dealt with by Section of the IPC. Section of the IPC deals with this crime. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act, was established in the UK with a motive to reform the gross negligence offence of the common law but the Act has itself proved to be inefficient and thus needs to be reformed.

There have been various discrepancies in the Act which need to be looked upon. Meanwhile, India does not have any specific legislation for punishing corporate manslaughter and it uses various provisions of IPC to punish corporate killing which thus, calls for the need for specific legislation targeted at corporate manslaughter to be brought in for India.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:. Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Check your mailbox for the joining link. From Bhawna Agarwal: [email protected].

Sign in. Password recovery. Forgot your password? Get help. Table of Contents. Contempt of the Parliament House in India and examples of contempt in recent times. By the new offence of corporate manslaughter had been created and brought into law. There was no longer any need to show that a single senior individual was personally guilty of manslaughter. Instead, the offence was linked to existing health and safety standards, and applied where the senior management had shown a gross breach of their duty of care towards employees and others.

However, holding corporations to account has not been easy. Between and there were only 25 successful prosecutions — although a further three firms were convicted of corporate manslaughter in one week in May However, some organisations retained their immunity, including the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces.

And, since , army personnel have been killed in training accidents, but no prosecutions can be brought against MOD officials for any failures due to Crown Immunity.