The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007—A 10-Year Review
| Published date | 01 February 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018317752937 |
| Date | 01 February 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Corporate Manslaughter
and Corporate Homicide
Act 2007—A 10-Year Review
Victoria Roper
University of Northumbria, UK
Abstract
This year will mark the 10th anniversary of the commencement of the Corporate Manslaughter
and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The Act was significant in that it introduced a specific
offence for corporate killing in the UK for the first time. Such reform was generally welcomed,
yet many academics and practitioners were critical of what they perceived to be the Act’s
unnecessary complexity and questioned how effective it would be. The Grenfell Tower fire has
recently stimulated renewed debate about corporate manslaughter and the ability of the law to
hold organisations and individuals to account. To engage meaningfully in this discourse, it is
imperative to review the Act’s performance in practice over the last 10 years. The author
offers an original contribution to knowledge in this area through (i) fresh analysis of whether
the criticism 10 years ago has proved to be well founded; (ii) scrutiny of the extent to which the
Act has been successful in meeting its stated aims; (iii) critique of the judicial precepts in this
area; and (iv) new insights into the future of corporate manslaughter including how the Act
could be more efficacious. The statutory corporate manslaughter offence affords a superior
basis of liability to the unwieldy common law offence that preceded it; there have been more
prosecutions, higher average fines and its reach encompasses more than just micro/small
companies. Conversely, the Act is simultaneously a disappointing compromise; fewer prose-
cutions than predicted, unjustifiable inconsistency in sentencing, a continued lack of individual
accountability and a prosecutory preoccupation with a limited range of defendant. The
introduction of new sentencing guidelines and recent case law developments, including the first
fine measured in the millions of pounds, signal progress and have gone some way to address
these inadequacies. Despite this, it is questionable whether the Act can rise to the challenge of
securing convictions in relation to Grenfell Tower and similar factually complex tragedies. In
order to fully capture and prevent the wide range of deaths within the Act’s remit, it is clear
that prosecutors need enhanced training and a willingness to embrace a holistic reconcep-
tualisation of ‘offender’.
Corresponding author:
Victoria Roper, University of Northumbria, UK.
E-mail: amit.joshi@sagepub.in
The Journal of Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 82(1) 48–75
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018317752937
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
Keywords
Corporate manslaughter, corporate crime, corporate homicide, corporate killing, involuntary
manslaughter
Introduction
This year will mark the 10th anniversary of the commencement of the Corporate Manslaughter and
Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (the ‘Act’).
1
The Act was significant in that it introduced a specific
offence for corporate killing in the UK for the first time.
2
The Act was generally welcomed at its
inception,
3
yet many experts were critical of what they perceived to be the Act’s unnecessary complex-
ity. A significant body of academic literature was produced in this period which collectively subscribed
to the view that the Act would be a failure, doomed by its own ‘layers of technicality’.
4
The Grenfell
Tower fire has recently engrossed the public and stimulated renewed debate about corporate manslaugh-
ter and the ability of the law to hold organisations and individuals to account.
5
To engage meaningfully
in this discourse, it is imperative to review the Act’s performance in practice over the last 10 years.
During this period, a number of updating pieces have been published, although these have generally been
short- or, at most, medium-length articles which have tended to focus on case law developments and
sentencing.
6
These contributions to the debate have not referred back in detail to the initial criticisms of
the Act in their analysis and the commentary has focused on the lack of convictions, and the absence of
prosecutions of large companies. General critiques have provided a brief overview of the cases in this
area, albeit there is scope for in-depth discussion. Recent developments warrant detailed critique: seven
companies have now been sentenced under new sentencing guidelines, and in July 2017, the first fine in
excess of £1 million was imposed in a corporate manslaughter case. In short, there is a need for a more
pervasive deconstruction of this important area, providing a comprehensive analysis of the extant law.
The majority of corporate manslaughter cases are unreported in the law reports and there is a requirement
for a de novo reconceptualisation in this area. The author offers an original contribution to knowledge
through (i) fresh analysis of whether the criticism 10 years ago has proved to be well founded; (ii)
scrutiny of the extent to which the Act has been successful in meeting its stated aims; (iii) critique of the
judicial precepts in this area; and (iv) new insights into the future of corporate manslaughter, including
how the Act could be more efficacious. The article is divided into five main sections.
1. The Act received Royal Assent on 26 July 2007 and came into force on 6 April 2008 save for s. 2(1)(d) and s. 10. Section
(2)(1)(d) (duty of care owed to a person in custody) came into force on 1 September 2011 and s. 10 (power to order conviction,
etc. to be publicised) came into force on 15 February 2010.
2. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the offence is known as ‘corporate manslaughter’, and in Scotland, it is known as
‘corporate homicide’—The corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, s. 1(5).
3. The House of Commons Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Committees reported that a new basis for liability was supported
by the majority of respondents. See the House of Commons Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Committees, Draft Cor-
porate Manslaughter Bill,First Joint Report of Session 2005-2006, Volume 1: Report, HC 540-I (2005) at paras 13 and 14.
4. D. Ormerod and R. Taylor, ‘The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007’ [2008] 8, Crim LR 589 at 590.
5. The Grenfell Tower fire broke out on 14 June 2017 in a public housing tower block in west London. At the time of writing, up to
80 people are estimated to have died in the blaze. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/19/grenfell-
tower-inquiry-may-consider-individual-manslaughter-charges (accessed 25 September 2017).
6. See for example:S. F. Jonesand L. Field, ‘Are Directors Gettingaway with Manslaughter? Emerging Trendsin Prosecutions for
Corporate Manslaughter’ (2014) 35 Business Law Review 158; C. Wells ‘Corporate Criminal Liability: A Ten Year Review’
[2014] 12 Crim LR 849; J. Grimes, ‘Corporate Manslaughter’, Law Society Gazette 29 August 2012; G. Slapper, ‘Justice is
Mocked if An ImportantLaw is Unenforced’ (2013) 77 JCL 91; N. Davies,‘Sentencing Guidance: CorporateManslaughter and
Health and Safety Offences Causing Death—Maintaining the Status Quo?’ [2010] 5 Crim LR 402; G. Slapper, ‘Corporate
Punishment’(2010) 74 JCL 181; L. Fieldand S. F. Jones, ‘The CorporateManslaughter and CorporateHomicide Act 2007 and the
SentencingGuidelines for Corporate Manslaughter:More Bark than Bite?’ (2015)36 The Company Lawyer 327 at 330; G. Forlin,
‘The Sentencing Council Consultation Document Relating to Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food
Safety and Hygiene Offence Guidelines: “Up Up and Away”!’(2015)1Archbold Review 6.
Roper 49
To continue reading
Request your trial