Corporate Manslaughter: A Radical Reform?
| Date | 01 April 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2007.71.2.151 |
| Published date | 01 April 2007 |
| Author | Stephen Griffin |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Corporate Manslaughter:
A Radical Reform?
Stephen Griffin*
Abstract The objective of this article is to analyse critically the proposed
new statutory offence of corporate manslaughter. The article considers the
content of the proposed legislation in depth and seeks to determine
whether it offers a radical alternative to the common law position. Al-
though the intention of the proposed legislation is to remove restrictive
legal obstacles associated with the prosecution of corporate manslaughter
cases, the article raises serious doubts in relation to whether the proposed
legislation will, in fact, achieve its goal.
The government’s decision to reform the law of corporate manslaugh-
ter1has been driven by a public and media perception of injustice
following the Crown’s failure to achieve criminal convictions for deaths
related to gross corporate failings.2While the perceived injustice pri-
marily affects the relatives of the victims of corporate manslaughter,
the legal system’s inability to prosecute successfully a corporate entity
and/or its human constituents for causing the death of a person is
contrary to the public interest, representing a moral failing of the
highest magnitude.
Prosecutions for corporate manslaughter are extremely rare and to
date convictions have been limited to a diminutive pool of small private
companies.3Proposals to reform the law of corporate manslaughter
were first given prominence in two Law Commission papers in the
1990s.4The Law Commission papers followed on from the collapse of
corporate manslaughter charges following, for example, the sinking
* Professor in Law, Wolverhampton University; e-mail S.Griffin@wlv.ac.uk.
1 The ambit of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill (introduced
on 16 November 2006; hereafter CMCHB) is not only relevant to registered
companies. CMCHB, cl. 1(2) deems it applicable to a relevant organisation, namely,
any body corporate, wherever incorporated (other than a corporation sole), a
department or other body listed in CMCHB, Sched. 1 and a police force (defined by
CMCHB, cl. 12(1)). However, this article is solely concerned with the effect of the
CMCHB in relation to a registered company.
2 Between 1992 and 2005, there were 3,425 work-related deaths. Figures reported in
the joint report of the Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Committees HC 540 I–
III (December 2005).
3 According to government figures, there were 34 work-related prosecutions for
manslaughter between 1993 and 2005, yet only seven organisations (all small
concerns) have ever been convicted of the offence.
4 Law Commission, Criminal Law: Involuntary Manslaughter, Law Com. Consultation
Paper No. 135 (1994) and Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter, Law
Com.Consultation Paper No. 237 (1996). See C. Wells, ‘The Corporate
Manslaughter Proposals: Pragmatism, Paradox and Peninsularity’ [1996] Crim
LR 545.
151
of the Herald of Free Enterprise and the Marchioness.5In May 2000, the
Home Office published a consultation paper on involuntary manslaugh-
ter incorporating proposals to reform the law relating to corporate
manslaughter.6The proposed reform of corporate manslaughter fol-
lowed on from the Southall and Paddington rail disasters,7both having
attracted strong media and public condemnation in the absence of any
convictions for corporate manslaughter. The findings of the reports of
both the Law Commission and Home Office led to a recommendation for
a new statutory offence of ‘corporate killing’.8Here, a company would
be guilty of having caused the death of a person without any reliance on
the identification principle. Liability would ensue in circumstances
where management failures of a company resulted in or contributed to
the death of a person.9
In 2003, in the aftermath of the Hatfield10 and the Potters Bar rail
disasters,11 the government announced that it would publish a Bill to
advance a new offence of corporate killing. On 23 March 2005, almost
10 years after first publicly committing itself to reform,12 the govern-
ment published its first draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill (the draft
5 In 1987, the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise was attributed to the negligence
of crew members who failed to close the bow doors of the ship after its departure
from the port of Zeebrugge. The car decks of the ship flooded, ultimately resulting
in the loss of 193 lives. Although the jury at the coroner's inquest returned verdicts
of unlawful killing, at the manslaughter trial the company was acquitted insofar as
the negligent acts of the crew members could not be attributed to the company's
directing mind. The sinking of the Marchioness in 1989 followed a collision between
the pleasure cruiser Marchioness and the gravel dredger Bowbelle. The collision was
caused by a negligent look-out system on both vessels. The collision resulted in the
loss of 51 lives. An inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing, but the CPS
declined to pursue criminal proceedings.
6 Home Office, Reforming the Law on Involuntary Manslaughter: the Government's
Proposals, available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2000-invol-manslaughter/
?version = 1, accessed 15 January 2007.
7 The Paddington disaster in 1999 was caused by the negligence of the driver of a
Thames train which went through a signal at danger at Ladbroke Grove, just
outside Paddington station in west London. The train crashed into a Paddington-
bound First Great Western express with the loss of 31 lives. In 1997, the Southall
rail disaster resulted in the loss of seven lives. The disaster occurred as a result of a
collision between an Intercity passenger train and a freight train.
8 B. Sullivan, ‘Corporate Killing—Some Government Proposals’ [2001] Crim LR 31.
9 The Law Commission’s proposals were broadly accepted. In addition, the Home
Office report also suggested that individuals involved in the management of a
culpable company should be disqualified from acting in any future management
role of a business and further suggested that an individual(s) who contributed to
the management failures should also be potentially liable, following separate
criminal proceedings, for the offence of corporate killing.
10 In 2000, the Hatfield rail disaster resulted in the loss of four lives when a high-
speed GNER train travelling London to Leeds was derailed by a broken rail near
Hatfield, Hertfordshire.
11 In 2002, at the Potters Bar disaster seven people died when a faulty set of points
derailed the London to King's Lynn train in Hertfordshire. The CPS concluded that
as no individual could be identified with the responsibility for the disaster there was
no realistic prospect of criminal convictions against a company for manslaughter by
gross negligence.
12 In 1996, fastening on to proposals for reform, the then future Labour Government
had ‘promised’ in its general election manifesto to implement many of the 1996
Law Commission proposals for reform.
The Journal of Criminal Law
152
To continue reading
Request your trial