Understanding the seriousness of corporate crime
| Author | Paul Almond |
| Published date | 01 May 2009 |
| Date | 01 May 2009 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1748895809102550 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Criminology & Criminal Justice
© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and Permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav
www.sagepublications.com
ISSN 1748–8958; Vol: 9(2): 145–164
DOI: 10.1177/1748895809102550
Understanding the seriousness of
corporate crime:
Some lessons for the new ‘corporate manslaughter’
offence
PAUL ALMOND
University of Reading, UK
Abstract
The measurement of public attitudes towards the criminal law has
become an important area of research in recent years because
of the perceived desirability of ensuring that the legal system
reflects broader societal values. In particular, studies into public
perceptions of crime seriousness have attempted to measure the
degree of concordance that exists between law and public opinion
in the organization and enforcement of criminal offences. These
understandings of perceived crime seriousness are particularly
important in relation to high-profile issues where public confidence
in the law is central to the legal agenda, such as the enforcement of
work-related fatality cases. A need to respond to public concern over
this issue was cited as a primary justification for the introduction of
the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. This
article will suggest that, although literature looking at the perceived
seriousness of corporate crime and, particularly, health and safety
offences is limited in volume and generalist in scope, important
lessons can be gleaned from existing literature, and pressing
questions are raised that demand further empirical investigation.
Key Words
corporate manslaughter • public perceptions • seriousness
145
ARTICLES
Criminology & Criminal Justice 9(2)146
Introduction
The introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide
Act 2007 into the law of England and Wales represents a notable shift in
the way that the criminal law responds to, and categorizes, cases where the
activities of a corporate body cause the death of a worker or member of
the public. The law has historically struggled to hold corporate defendants
criminally liable under the law of manslaughter, and has tended instead to
deal with these incidents as regulatory health and safety cases (Clarkson,
1996; Sullivan, 1996; Wells, 2001). The new corporate manslaughter
offence introduced by the 2007 Act is intended to ‘properly reflect the gravity
and serious ness’ of work-related fatality cases (Home Office, 2005: 6) by
facilitating the successful prosecution of the worst cases under the criminal
law of homicide. Current Health and Safety Executive (HSE) statistics
indi cate that there were 364 work-related fatalities in the year 2006—7
(HSE, 2007),1 however, to date only seven corporate bodies have ever been
convicted of manslaughter following a work-related fatality.
This article aims to explore the rationale behind the introduction of the
new offence, in particular, the arguments put forward by the Law Com-
mission (1996) and Home Office (2000, 2005) that law reform was neces-
sary to reflect the seriousness of work-related fatality cases and restore
public confidence in the law.2 The Home Office (2005: 58) clearly indicated
that there was symbolic and communicative value to be obtained from
the imposition of an explicitly criminal label to the forms of wrongdoing
involved in these cases, observing that treating them as serious criminal
offences is necessary in order to differentiate them from lesser ‘offence[s]
that might be characterised as regulatory’. Drawing this distinction was seen
as important in order to demonstrate that the law is capable of responding
to the cases in a sufficiently robust manner, and in doing so reflect the high
degree of seriousness that they are perceived to possess. By holding cor-
porate offenders guilty of a manslaughter offence, the argument goes, the
legal system is able to reflect adequately the normative importance that the
public attaches to these cases, and address the concerns and fears that work-
related fatality cases can provoke.
Yet the claims that are made in order to justify this new offence are
open to question, and there are grounds for scepticism in relation to some
of the assertions made about public attitudes and perceptions in this area.
Neither the Law Commission nor the Home Office provided any evidence
to back up their claims to be responding to a widespread public concern or
demand for criminalization in this area, and the limited empirical evidence
available does tend to suggest that public attitudes are not straightforwardly
punitive or demanding of criminalization (Almond, 2008). This article will
attempt to evaluate the notion that public sentiment regards work-related
fatality cases as serious and important, and understand how public concerns
are liable to map on to the new offence. The findings of crime seriousness
surveys will be explored in order to gain a clearer understanding of public
To continue reading
Request your trial