Corporate Manslaughter in UK Law
Share
Corporate manslaughter refers to a legal offence where a company or organisation is found responsible for causing a person's death due to gross negligence in the way its activities are managed or organised. Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, a corporation can be prosecuted if the failure of senior management to ensure proper safety measures results in a fatality. The offence does not target individual employees but holds the entire organisation accountable, with penalties including unlimited fines and corrective measures. It aims to address failures in corporate responsibility, ensuring that organisations take proper care to prevent deaths.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
The Act was introduced to expand and clarify the legal framework surrounding corporate responsibility for fatalities caused by gross negligence. Before the Act, it was difficult to prosecute corporations for manslaughter because the law required an individual employee of senior status to be personally responsible for all elements of the offence. The Act, which came into force on 6 April 2008, sought to address public dissatisfaction over the inability to hold corporations accountable in cases of negligence leading to death. The Act applies across the UK, with the term corporate manslaughter used in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and corporate homicide in Scotland.
Background
Under UK law, corporations are recognised as juristic persons, which means they can be held criminally liable, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v P & O Ferries (Dover) Ltd [1991], following the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster where a ferry capsized moments after leaving the Belgian port of Zeebrugge on 6 March 1987, killing 193 passengers and crew.
However, assigning criminal intent (mens rea) to a corporation was challenging before the introduction of this Act. A corporation could only be convicted of manslaughter if a senior employee embodied the mind of the corporation and was directly responsible for the fatal incident. This approach often failed to hold corporations accountable, particularly in cases where responsibility was more diffused across multiple levels of management. The Act was introduced to resolve these issues and broaden corporate liability for deaths caused by gross negligence.
The Offence Defined by the Act
The offence of corporate manslaughter is committed when an organisation's management or organisational failures lead to a person's death, and these failures amount to a gross breach of the duty of care owed to the deceased. For an offence to occur, it must be shown that the failures of senior management were a substantial cause of the breach. A key feature of the Act is that it removes the need to identify an individual employee as responsible for the entirety of the offence. Instead, the Act focuses on the overall management structure and practices that contributed to the fatality.
Who Can Be Held Liable?
The Act applies to a wide range of entities, including corporations, police forces, government departments, and other employers such as trade unions. However, not all government departments are included, with certain functions like military and emergency services being exempt from the law under specific circumstances. Partnerships and other employers can also be held liable, provided they meet the criteria set by the Act.
Relevant Duty of Care
A central concept in the Act is the notion of a relevant duty of care. This duty is based on existing negligence laws and is determined by the court. Organisations have several duties of care depending on the context, such as ensuring the safety of employees, contractors, and members of the public. In sensitive areas, such as law enforcement, child protection, and military operations, the law provides some exemptions to ensure that vital public functions are not unduly hindered by fears of prosecution. For example, the implementation of Section 2(1)(d) concerning the duties of care to persons in custody was delayed due to the complex nature of the responsibilities involved.
Gross Breach of Duty of Care
A breach is considered gross if it falls far below the standard expected of the organisation. When determining whether there was a gross breach, the jury is required to assess whether the organisation violated health and safety laws and the seriousness of such violations. If the breach posed a significant risk of death, this strengthens the case for corporate manslaughter. The jury can also take into account the broader corporate culture, including whether there were systemic problems such as inadequate policies or poor attitudes toward health and safety that contributed to the failure.
The Role of Senior Management
The Act places a special emphasis on the role of senior management in determining corporate liability. Senior management refers to individuals who make crucial decisions regarding the organisation's operations or who manage substantial parts of those operations. If their decisions or actions play a significant role in the failure that led to a person's death, the organisation can be prosecuted under the Act. This provision ensures that accountability reaches the highest levels of corporate leadership.
Penalties for Corporate Manslaughter
The penalties for corporate manslaughter are significant. Upon conviction, a corporation can face an unlimited fine. The fine is typically calculated based on the size and turnover of the organisation, with a recommended starting point of £300,000 for larger companies, though there is no upper limit. In addition to fines, courts may order the company to take corrective actions, such as remedying the conditions that led to the fatality or publicising the conviction to ensure transparency and accountability. The sentencing guidelines issued in 2016 provide a framework for determining penalties, taking into account the severity of the breach and the company's financial resources.
The 2007 Act represents a significant shift in the legal treatment of corporations in cases involving fatalities due to negligence. As it imposes liability on corporate management and organisation rather than require the identification of a single responsible individual, it broadens corporate accountability and ensures that organisations face serious consequences when their failures lead to loss of life. It serves as a strong deterrent, encouraging companies to prioritise safety and compliance with health and safety laws to avoid the severe penalties that accompany a conviction for corporate manslaughter.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
The Act was introduced to expand and clarify the legal framework surrounding corporate responsibility for fatalities caused by gross negligence. Before the Act, it was difficult to prosecute corporations for manslaughter because the law required an individual employee of senior status to be personally responsible for all elements of the offence. The Act, which came into force on 6 April 2008, sought to address public dissatisfaction over the inability to hold corporations accountable in cases of negligence leading to death. The Act applies across the UK, with the term corporate manslaughter used in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and corporate homicide in Scotland.
Background
Under UK law, corporations are recognised as juristic persons, which means they can be held criminally liable, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v P & O Ferries (Dover) Ltd [1991], following the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster where a ferry capsized moments after leaving the Belgian port of Zeebrugge on 6 March 1987, killing 193 passengers and crew.
However, assigning criminal intent (mens rea) to a corporation was challenging before the introduction of this Act. A corporation could only be convicted of manslaughter if a senior employee embodied the mind of the corporation and was directly responsible for the fatal incident. This approach often failed to hold corporations accountable, particularly in cases where responsibility was more diffused across multiple levels of management. The Act was introduced to resolve these issues and broaden corporate liability for deaths caused by gross negligence.
The Offence Defined by the Act
The offence of corporate manslaughter is committed when an organisation's management or organisational failures lead to a person's death, and these failures amount to a gross breach of the duty of care owed to the deceased. For an offence to occur, it must be shown that the failures of senior management were a substantial cause of the breach. A key feature of the Act is that it removes the need to identify an individual employee as responsible for the entirety of the offence. Instead, the Act focuses on the overall management structure and practices that contributed to the fatality.
Who Can Be Held Liable?
The Act applies to a wide range of entities, including corporations, police forces, government departments, and other employers such as trade unions. However, not all government departments are included, with certain functions like military and emergency services being exempt from the law under specific circumstances. Partnerships and other employers can also be held liable, provided they meet the criteria set by the Act.
Relevant Duty of Care
A central concept in the Act is the notion of a relevant duty of care. This duty is based on existing negligence laws and is determined by the court. Organisations have several duties of care depending on the context, such as ensuring the safety of employees, contractors, and members of the public. In sensitive areas, such as law enforcement, child protection, and military operations, the law provides some exemptions to ensure that vital public functions are not unduly hindered by fears of prosecution. For example, the implementation of Section 2(1)(d) concerning the duties of care to persons in custody was delayed due to the complex nature of the responsibilities involved.
Gross Breach of Duty of Care
A breach is considered gross if it falls far below the standard expected of the organisation. When determining whether there was a gross breach, the jury is required to assess whether the organisation violated health and safety laws and the seriousness of such violations. If the breach posed a significant risk of death, this strengthens the case for corporate manslaughter. The jury can also take into account the broader corporate culture, including whether there were systemic problems such as inadequate policies or poor attitudes toward health and safety that contributed to the failure.
The Role of Senior Management
The Act places a special emphasis on the role of senior management in determining corporate liability. Senior management refers to individuals who make crucial decisions regarding the organisation's operations or who manage substantial parts of those operations. If their decisions or actions play a significant role in the failure that led to a person's death, the organisation can be prosecuted under the Act. This provision ensures that accountability reaches the highest levels of corporate leadership.
Penalties for Corporate Manslaughter
The penalties for corporate manslaughter are significant. Upon conviction, a corporation can face an unlimited fine. The fine is typically calculated based on the size and turnover of the organisation, with a recommended starting point of £300,000 for larger companies, though there is no upper limit. In addition to fines, courts may order the company to take corrective actions, such as remedying the conditions that led to the fatality or publicising the conviction to ensure transparency and accountability. The sentencing guidelines issued in 2016 provide a framework for determining penalties, taking into account the severity of the breach and the company's financial resources.
The 2007 Act represents a significant shift in the legal treatment of corporations in cases involving fatalities due to negligence. As it imposes liability on corporate management and organisation rather than require the identification of a single responsible individual, it broadens corporate accountability and ensures that organisations face serious consequences when their failures lead to loss of life. It serves as a strong deterrent, encouraging companies to prioritise safety and compliance with health and safety laws to avoid the severe penalties that accompany a conviction for corporate manslaughter.
