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
© 2024 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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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