Corporate manslaughter
Encyclopedia : C : CO : COR : Corporate manslaughter
|
| Criminal law in English law |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Classes of crimes |
| Summary · Indictable |
| Hybrid offence · Regulatory offences |
| Lesser included offence |
| Elements of crimes |
| Actus reus · Causation (law)>Causation |
| Mens rea · Intention (criminal)>Intention (general) |
| Intention in English law · Recklessness (criminal)>Recklessness |
| Criminal negligence · Corporate liability |
| Vicarious liability · Strict liability |
| Omission · Concurrence |
| Ignorantia juris non excusat |
| Inchoate offences |
| Incitement · Conspiracy (crime)>Conspiracy |
| Accessory · Attempt |
| Common purpose |
| Defences |
| Consent · Diminished responsibility |
| Duress |
| M'Naghten Rules · Necessity in English law>Necessity |
| Provocation |
| Self-defence |
| Crimes against the person |
| Common assault · Battery (crime)>Battery |
| Actual bodily harm · Grievous bodily harm |
| Offences Against The Person Act 1861 |
| Murder · Manslaughter |
| Corporate manslaughter · Harassment |
| Public order and crimes against property |
| Criminal Damage Act 1971 |
| Malicious Damage Act 1861 |
| Public nuisance |
| Crimes of dishonesty |
| Theft Act 1968 · Theft · Dishonesty |
| Robbery · Burglary · TWOC |
| Deception · Deception offences |
| Blackmail · Handling |
| Theft Act 1978 · Forgery |
| Computer crime |
| Sexual crimes |
| Rape · Kidnapping |
| Crimes against justice |
| Bribery · Perjury |
| Obstruction of justice |
| See also Criminal Procedure |
| Other areas of the common law |
| Contract law · Tort law · Property law |
| Wills and trusts · Evidence |
| Portals: · |
Corporate manslaughter is a term in English law for an act of homicide committed by a company. In general, a legal person is in the same position as a natural person, and may be convicted for committing virtually all offences, under English criminal law. The Court of Appeal confirmed in one of the cases following the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster that a company can in principle commit manslaughter, although all defendants in that case were acquitted.
Discussion
The common law test to impose criminal responsibility on a company (known as the "Identification Doctrine") only arises where there is a "controlling mind" whose actions and intentions can be imputed to the company (that is, a person in control of the company's affairs to a sufficient degree that the company can be fairly be said to think and act through him). This is tested by reference to the detailed work patterns of the manager, and the job title or description given to that person is irrelevant. But in most large companies, there is often no single person who acts as a "controlling mind", and many issues of health and safety are delegated to junior managers who are not "controlling minds".On 6th March 1987, 192 people died when the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized. Although individual employees failed in their duties, the Sheen Report severely criticised P&O's attitude to safety, stating:
- All concerned in management ... were at fault in that all must be regarded as sharing responsibility for the failure of management. From top to bottom the body corporate was infected with the disease of sloppiness.
Despite its failure, the appeal following the prosecution at R. v. P & O Ferries (Dover) Ltd (1991) 93 Cr App Rep 72, confirmed that corporate manslaughter is a charge known to English criminal law, and with the revival of gross negligence as a mens rea for manslaughter, it was thought that prosecutions might succeed. But a prosecution of Great Western Trains following the Southall rail crash collapsed because no manager was also prosecuted.
Following R v Prentice (1993) 3 WLR 937, a breach of duty amounts to 'gross negligence' when there is:
- indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health; actual foresight of the risk coupled with the determination nevertheless to run it; appreciation of the risk coupled with an intention to avoid it but also coupled with such a high degree of negligence in the attempted avoidance as the jury consider justifies conviction, and inattention or failure to advert to a serious risk which goes 'beyond inadvertence' in respect of an obvious and important matter which the defendant's duty demanded he should address.
A draft bill was published in early 2005, and the Queen's Speech on 17 May 2005 included a reference to an Act of Parliament to be passed in 2005/6 to widen the scope for prosecutions for corporate manslaughter. A company will commit the new offence of corporate manslaughter if its activities were managed or organised by its senior managers so as to cause a person's death and amounted to a "gross breach" of the duty of care owed to the deceased. As a fictitious person, a company cannot be imprisoned, but the penalty would be an unlimited fine.
References
- The Crown Prosecution Service website provides more information at [link]
- Wells, Celia. "Corporations: Culture, Risk and Criminal Liability", (1993) Criminal Law Review 551
External link
- [Draft bill and consultation paper] (published by the Home Office, 23 March 2005)
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.