Dead serious
The Corporate Manslaughter Act could herald a new era for corporate accountability
October 03, 2007 at 08:05 PM
5 minute read
The Corporate Manslaughter Act could herald a new era for corporate accountability
Organisations operating in the UK will soon be open to prosecution for a new criminal offence of corporate manslaughter. Debate has raged in recent years over codifying the offence but the scope of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 has now been finalised and it will come into force on 6 April, 2008.
The intention of the Act is to make it easier to hold organisations to account after a fatality has been caused by significant internal failures. The Act is also intended to secure greater public confidence that organisations will be held accountable in these circumstances.
The Act will apply to all companies operating in the UK and some government departments. The Act also applies to other organisations in the UK when they employ staff including partnerships, trade unions and employers' associations.
Under the existing common law, a company can only be convicted of corporate manslaughter if a director or company officer is guilty of manslaughter, and identified as the 'controlling mind' of the company.
This test was clarified when a UK ferry company was prosecuted following an incident where 187 people died. The prosecution against the company failed as there was insufficient evidence to convict the seven individual defendants prosecuted.
The UK Law Commission recommended that a special offence of 'corporate killing' be introduced. Twelve years after this proposal, the Act implementing these recommendations will come into force and the current common law offence will be abolished.
Under the new Act, a company will be guilty of corporate manslaughter (or corporate homicide, as it will be called in Scotland) if:
l the way the company's activities are managed or organised causes a person's death, and amounts to a gross breach of the company's relevant duty of care to the deceased; and
l the company's senior management was involved in a substantial element of the breach.
The Act will apply if the death occurs in the UK, within the UK territorial sea and on certain UK craft.
The 'relevant' duties of care are those owed under the law of negligence, including:
l duties to employees, other workers or service providers;
l duties as an occupier of premises;
l duties owed in connection with supplying goods or services (e.g. customers and passengers);
l duties owed when carrying out construction or maintenance operations; or
l duties owed when carrying out commercial activities (e.g. farming and mining).
It will only be when the alleged conduct falls far below what could reasonably be expected of a company in the circumstances that a 'gross breach' will have occurred. The individuals who constitute 'senior management' will vary depending on the nature of the company but will generally include decision-makers significantly involved in deciding how the organisation's activities are administered.
If a prosecution is successful, an unlimited fine can be imposed and the organisation can be required to comply with remedial or publicity orders. A remedial order will require the organisation to take specified steps to remedy the breach and any health and safety deficiencies. Publicity orders will require the organisation to publish details of the offence, that it was found guilty, the amount of the fine and what actions are required under any remedial order. This provision is in line with other UK legislation that aims to 'name and shame'.
There is no liability for individuals under the Act. The Act specifically states that an individual cannot be guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the offence. The liability of individuals will not be increased by the new legislation but individuals can still be prosecuted under the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter.
There is no Crown immunity under the Act but it will only apply to specified government departments, including the Department for Transport, Home Office, Ministry of Defence, Cabinet Office and Department of Health. However, the public sector will only owe 'relevant' duties of care in certain circumstances, including as an employer and occupier of premises.
Any decision on the allocation of public resources or formulation of public policy is excluded from the scope of the Act. Certain operational and military activities are also excluded, including dealing with terrorism, civil unrest or serious disorder.
The Act is not intended to increase the regulatory burden on organisations operating in the UK. If an organisation complies with existing UK health and safety legislation then, broadly, nothing further will need to be done. If you have any concerns that your health and safety policies and procedures in the UK are lacking or if there have been any 'near misses', you should consider taking action now.
It has taken a long time for the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 to be finalised and it should be expected that the Health and Safety Executive will want to ensure that the new law is used wherever necessary to bring organisations to account. n
Emily Peters is an associate at SJ Berwin.This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSome Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
4 minute readKPMG's Bid To Practice Law in US On Hold As Arizona Court Exercises Caution
Trending Stories
- 1Retired NY Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman Playing Key Role in Advancing 'Weinstein Bill'
- 2How I Made Partner: 'Take Every Opportunity to Get Involved in the Business Side of the Firm,' Says Alyssa Domzal of Ballard Spahr
- 3People in the News—Feb. 5, 2025—Eckert Seamans, Rawle & Henderson
- 4Librarian's Termination Violated First Amendment Protections, Lawsuit Claims
- 5Choice-of-Law Issues as the UCC 2022 Amendments Come into Effect
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250