7341618
Corporate
Manslaughter
- Can only be fined cannot be liable for
murder
- Prince's Sports Club - fined over
£130,000 after marie-simon cronje
died on an inflatable behind a
speedboat - cries not heard in time
no observer - lack of a spotter
amongst other health and safety
violations, driver had no recognised
qualifications
- Can allow
companies to
accept corporate
culpability but
avoid individual
culpability
- However
fined entire
company
assets
- However
fined entire
company
assets
- Can allow
companies to
accept corporate
culpability but
avoid individual
culpability
- Prince's Sports Club - fined over
£130,000 after marie-simon cronje
died on an inflatable behind a
speedboat - cries not heard in time
no observer - lack of a spotter
amongst other health and safety
violations, driver had no recognised
qualifications
- Coroner for East
Kent, ex parte
Spooner
- A corporation can
be convicted of
manslaughter
- Benefits of imposing
liability is that
companies don't
escape regulation and
prevent individuals
from being held
responsible for
company practice
- It can be more convenient that
prosecuting individuals,
companies are more often able
to pay fines, the ability to
prosecute a comapny may
encourage shareholder control, if
a company profited from the
offence they should pay, can
avoid companies putting
pressure on employees to act
illegally, adverse publicity may
deter more than individual
prosecution.
- However in: JMW Farms Ltd - A fine of over
£187000 was imposed however the
companies net profit the year before had
been over £1 and a half million pounds and
arguably did not impose true justice
- Criticisms -
Punishment may
not dissuade or be
proportionate, and
a lack of
deterrence
- Director charged
but not fined
despite the
numerous
violations
- Criticisms:
However lack of
individual
responsibility
and culpability
- Criticisms:
However lack of
individual
responsibility
and culpability
- Criticisms -
Punishment may
not dissuade or be
proportionate, and
a lack of
deterrence
- However in: JMW Farms Ltd - A fine of over
£187000 was imposed however the
companies net profit the year before had
been over £1 and a half million pounds and
arguably did not impose true justice
- It can be more convenient that
prosecuting individuals,
companies are more often able
to pay fines, the ability to
prosecute a comapny may
encourage shareholder control, if
a company profited from the
offence they should pay, can
avoid companies putting
pressure on employees to act
illegally, adverse publicity may
deter more than individual
prosecution.
- Benefits of imposing
liability is that
companies don't
escape regulation and
prevent individuals
from being held
responsible for
company practice
- A corporation can
be convicted of
manslaughter
- MR: Two methods -
Vicarious liability and
doctrine of
identification
- Vicarious liability: The liability of
one legal person (includes
company or group as well as
individual) for the acts of
another - three types where this
can arise
- Strict liability offences:
Where the statutory
description of the AR can
be interpreted to cover
someone other than the
perpetrator (shop assistant
sells by shop also sells)
- Where the possibility
of vicarious liability is
expressed or implied
in a statute (selling of
liquor to underage
people by employees)
- In cases of delegated
management (the
employer would be
vicariously liable for any
criminal offence the
employee commits whilst
carrying out the duty) -
Even if it requires MR
- Strict liability offences:
Where the statutory
description of the AR can
be interpreted to cover
someone other than the
perpetrator (shop assistant
sells by shop also sells)
- Doctrine of Identification:
applies to individuals who have
some power of control within an
organisations and also applies
to all offences to which
vicarious doesn't
- Allows certain people in high
positions to be recognised as
'being' the company and any
liability they incur during company
business can be assigned to the
company
- However
the larger
the
company
the more
difficult
to convict
unless
vicarious
liability is
applied
- Tesco Supermarkets v
Nattrass
- Narrow attitude as to who can be the
controlling mind, only those who had
some power of control within the
organisation, including some
discretion over the activity with which
the offence is concerned
- Challenged:
- Meridian Global Funds Management
Asia Ltd v Securities Commission
- Lord Hoffman suggested that in
attributing knowledge, a court should
not take too literal the concept of a
directing mind - relevant to examine the
statute language, contents and
underlying policy to see how it applies to
a company
- When further
debated in
another case,
this approach
was rejected
- When further
debated in
another case,
this approach
was rejected
- Lord Hoffman suggested that in
attributing knowledge, a court should
not take too literal the concept of a
directing mind - relevant to examine the
statute language, contents and
underlying policy to see how it applies to
a company
- Meridian Global Funds Management
Asia Ltd v Securities Commission
- Challenged:
- Narrow attitude as to who can be the
controlling mind, only those who had
some power of control within the
organisation, including some
discretion over the activity with which
the offence is concerned
- Allows certain people in high
positions to be recognised as
'being' the company and any
liability they incur during company
business can be assigned to the
company
- Vicarious liability: The liability of
one legal person (includes
company or group as well as
individual) for the acts of
another - three types where this
can arise
- Has a specific statute/separate provision
- Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act 2007
- The offence: An organisation to
which this section applies is guilty of
an offence if the way in which its
activities are managed or organised -
- a) causes a person's death, and b)
amounts to a gross breach of a
relevant duty of care owed by the
organisation to the deceased.
- An organisation is guilty of this offence under this section only if the way in
which its activies are managed or organised by its senior management is a
substantial element in the breach reffered to in sub section (1) - this gets rid of
the direct mind principle with a gross negligence test
- RELEVANT DUTY
OF CARE
STATUTE BOOK
pg 362
- the meaning is
given by s.2 read
with s, 3-7
- s.8 factors for jury
- s.20 companies
no liable for
gross negligence
manslaughter
but individuals
of the company
can be
- Problem of novus actus interveniens: If a third party
free and voluntary intervenes it breaks the chain of
causation making it not liable
- Mobile Sweepers (Reading) Ltd, 2014
- fined £8000 lowest fine for
corporate manslaughter to that date
however the sole director Mervyn
Owens faced a charge of gross
negligence manslaughter and
ordered to pay £191000, after Mr
Hinton was crushed under the truck
he was working underneath -
UNREPORTED
- Problem of novus actus interveniens: If a third party
free and voluntary intervenes it breaks the chain of
causation making it not liable
- s.20 companies
no liable for
gross negligence
manslaughter
but individuals
of the company
can be
- s.8 factors for jury
- the meaning is
given by s.2 read
with s, 3-7
- An organisation is guilty of this offence under this section only if the way in
which its activies are managed or organised by its senior management is a
substantial element in the breach reffered to in sub section (1) - this gets rid of
the direct mind principle with a gross negligence test
- a) causes a person's death, and b)
amounts to a gross breach of a
relevant duty of care owed by the
organisation to the deceased.
- The offence: An organisation to
which this section applies is guilty of
an offence if the way in which its
activities are managed or organised -
- Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act 2007
- Alternative Punishments:
Putting company on
probation, reducing value
of shares, community
activities, health and
safety courses and more
inspectors
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.