Distribution Network
Content
British companies whose negligence leads to the death of individuals
will face prosecution for manslaughter under legislation that now has
royal assent.
The Corporate Manslaughter Act, coming into force on 6 April 2008, for the first time makes companies, organizations and government bodies liable to an unlimited fine if found to have caused death through ‘gross corporate health and safety failures’. An organization will be guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organized causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed to the victim.
UK justice minister Maria Eagle said that under existing legislation it was ‘virtually impossible’ to prosecute large companies for management failures leading to deaths, and that the new law ‘will ensure justice for victims of corporate failures’.
Between 1992 and 2005 at least 3452 workers were killed in industrial accidents in Britain. Charges brought in 34 cases resulted in seven convictions, involving either small companies or sole traders. Previous legislation led to few convictions because it required the identification of ‘a single controlling mind’ within an organization before a corporate manslaughter prosecution could be brought.
The legislation has been welcomed by the Trades Union Congress, which said it should herald ‘the start of a change in the safety culture at the top of the UK’s companies’. However, the Confederation of British Industry, the largest employers’ group, said the law should be used cautiously. ‘It will be important it is now enforced proportionately,’ said John Cridland, the CBI’s deputy director-general. ‘This offence should apply in a very limited number of cases.’ Health and safety specialists say companies should review their procedures to ensure they do not commit the new offence, but should not be too concerned about the Act’s implications.
John Herbert, director of health, safety and environment at the UK-based consultancy arm of the manufacturers’ organization EEF, said the law should pose ‘no significant threat’ to businesses with a ‘responsible and proactive’ approach to managing workplace health and safety. ‘The aim is to facilitate prosecution of those that show a truly negligent attitude to health and safety, leading to a fatality,’ he said.
Roger Bibbings, occupational safety adviser at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said the Act ‘makes clear that the full weight of criminal law will be brought to bear on organizations of all sizes that cause death by behaving recklessly’. But in most cases it will be used only ‘when standards have fallen far below what might have been reasonably expected’.
The London law firm Capstick said: ‘There is no reason to be overly apprehensive about the new legislation. To avoid liability, organizations need to show they have acted reasonably and responsibly, which most bodies already do.’ Official guidance for companies will be issued shortly.
The Corporate Manslaughter Act, coming into force on 6 April 2008, for the first time makes companies, organizations and government bodies liable to an unlimited fine if found to have caused death through ‘gross corporate health and safety failures’. An organization will be guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organized causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed to the victim.
UK justice minister Maria Eagle said that under existing legislation it was ‘virtually impossible’ to prosecute large companies for management failures leading to deaths, and that the new law ‘will ensure justice for victims of corporate failures’.
Between 1992 and 2005 at least 3452 workers were killed in industrial accidents in Britain. Charges brought in 34 cases resulted in seven convictions, involving either small companies or sole traders. Previous legislation led to few convictions because it required the identification of ‘a single controlling mind’ within an organization before a corporate manslaughter prosecution could be brought.
The legislation has been welcomed by the Trades Union Congress, which said it should herald ‘the start of a change in the safety culture at the top of the UK’s companies’. However, the Confederation of British Industry, the largest employers’ group, said the law should be used cautiously. ‘It will be important it is now enforced proportionately,’ said John Cridland, the CBI’s deputy director-general. ‘This offence should apply in a very limited number of cases.’ Health and safety specialists say companies should review their procedures to ensure they do not commit the new offence, but should not be too concerned about the Act’s implications.
John Herbert, director of health, safety and environment at the UK-based consultancy arm of the manufacturers’ organization EEF, said the law should pose ‘no significant threat’ to businesses with a ‘responsible and proactive’ approach to managing workplace health and safety. ‘The aim is to facilitate prosecution of those that show a truly negligent attitude to health and safety, leading to a fatality,’ he said.
Roger Bibbings, occupational safety adviser at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said the Act ‘makes clear that the full weight of criminal law will be brought to bear on organizations of all sizes that cause death by behaving recklessly’. But in most cases it will be used only ‘when standards have fallen far below what might have been reasonably expected’.
The London law firm Capstick said: ‘There is no reason to be overly apprehensive about the new legislation. To avoid liability, organizations need to show they have acted reasonably and responsibly, which most bodies already do.’ Official guidance for companies will be issued shortly.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No