|
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 |
|
12 March 2008 |
From 6th April 2008, it is much more likely that commercial and public organisations will feel the strong hand of the law if their activities cause someone's death as opposed to individuals within the organisation.
From 6th April 2008, it is much more likely that commercial and public organisations will feel the strong hand of the law if their activities cause someone's death as opposed to individuals within the organisation. It has always been possible to prosecute the individuals responsible but rarely has the organisation been convicted under previous legislation.
Why is it thought necessary to find corporations liable? It is hoped that naming and shaming will put corporations under real pressure to look to how their activities are managed and organised so as to avoid putting their employees, customers, service users and visitors to their premises and property at risk.
The new law allows the Court not only to order how the wrong be put right for the future but also that the wrongdoing be extensively publicised at the corporation's expense. Financial penalties can be without limit in addition.
It would be easy for those involved in commercial or state enterprises to take fright but they should not be overly concerned. The law defining the duty of organisations to those exposed to their activities is already quite clearly defined. A conviction will require a gross breach of those duties, in other words that the corporation has to be guilty of operating standards far below what can reasonably be expected. Public authorities will not be liable for exercising decisions on matters of public policy by, for example, directing funds to one area of need rather than another.
A jury will be directed to look at whether health and safety guidance and regulations have been ignored and the extent to which lives have been placed at risk. The purpose of the legislation is to eliminate complacency and the turning of a blind eye to bad and dangerous practices. Those organisations that operate sensible and regular risk assessments and management are likely to be able to defend any charges which can only be brought with the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Were it to be found that an organisation had sought to profit through cutting corners and ignoring safety practice , the power to require the organisation publicise it's defaults as well as to impose an unlimited fine could stop an enterprise in it's tracks.
Whether this Act will provide additional teeth to what is already an extensive array of offences under Health and Safety legislation is yet to be discovered. Those individuals who may be responsible for such disregard for the safety of others as to cause death can already expect prosecution. Arguments that shortcomings were the responsibility of one weak link in the management team should be rarer and true corporate responsibility imposed.
Will we be seeing more such cases in these pages? Time will tell but the Government certainly expects so. It will be interesting to see whether more individual tragedies can be avoided by wielding the long arm of the criminal law.
|
|
