The Doctrine of Identification, Causation and Corporate Liability for Manslaughter
| Author | Simon Parsons |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830306700106 |
| Published date | 01 February 2003 |
| Date | 01 February 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Doctrine
of
Identification,
Causation
and
Corporate
Liability
for
Manslaughter
Simon Parsons"
Abstract
This article examines corporate liability for manslaughter.
It
considers the legal effect of the 'identification' doctrine and how it
operates as a legalbarrier to potential corporate liability. The question of
whether the 'conduct' of a corporation is a cause of death is also
examined. The article maintains that the Court of Appeal in
Attorney-
General's
Reference
(No.2 of
1999)
had the opportunity to remove the legal
fiction of identification and to overcome the problem of causation, so
that a proper appraisal of an organisational structure can be made in
order to ascertain whether a corporation's safety performance was
grossly negligent.
In 1999 Great Western Trains was prosecuted for corporate
man-
slaughter in respect of
the
seven deaths
that
had
resulted from
the
Southall train crash in 1997. The prosecution collapsed because
the
'identification' doctrine prevents a large corporation from being held
responsible for manslaughter. There followed areference by
the
Attor-
ney-General on a
point
of law! in
which
the
Court of Appeal confirmed
that
the
doctrine still continues to operate in respect of
common
law
offences including manslaughter.i However, in respect of
statutory
crimes of strict liability
and
of mens rea,
the
courts
have
shown
a
willingness to
move
away
from
the
identification doctrine to
an
alter-
native direct corporate liability or
one
based on vicarious liability. The
approach
to causation is also different as in respect of
manslaughter
it is
unclear
when
voluntary
conduct
will break
the
chain of causation
but
with
the
statutory offences it is clear it will not. This article argues
that
the
Court of Appeal in Attorney-General's
Reference
(No.2 of 1999)3 could
have
taken
the
opportunity
to
make
either
the
identification doctrine
more
workable or,
more
fundamentally, to avoid
the
barriers of identi-
fication
and
causation by redefining corporate liability for manslaughter,
by drawing on
the
existing
common
law
relating to an employer's
common
law
duty
to take care for
the
safety of employees.
What is
the
identification doctrine?
The doctrine has its origins in
the
civil case of
Lennards
Carrying
Co.
Ltdv
Asiatic
Petroleum
us:
where
it was held
that
an act by
the
supreme
*Senior Lecturer,
Southampton
Institute.
1
Under
the
Criminal Justice Act 1972. s. 36.
2Attorney-General's Reference
(No.2
of 1999) (2000) 3All ER 182. CA.
3Ibid.
4(1915] AC 705. HL.
69
To continue reading
Request your trial