Issue brief - Corporate Manslaughter

Delivery of corporate manslaughter legislation was a manifesto commitment by the Labour Party at the 2005 election. In addition, there is a well-established need to amend the law to make it easier to prosecute organisations where a death occurs as a result of their gross negligence.

Existing legal provisions are significantly constrained by the requirement to identify a single controlling mind within a culpable organisation, (i.e. an individual who is the embodiment of the organisation). This has so far proved impossible in the case of large and complex organisations. Consequently there have only ever been 6 successful prosecutions for corporate manslaughter in the UK , all against very small companies.

The government issued a draft bill on corporate manslaughter in March 2005, for comment prior to pre-legislative scrutiny, which represented the culmination of a protracted period of work. This draft Bill addressed the majority of the points which EEF raised during the earlier stages of the process.

After a period of select committee scrutiny, the government published the first version of the bill before summer recess. The second reading of the bill – now renamed Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide – will take place on 10 October 2006.

EEF accepts that there is a need to address this situation so that it will be easier to prosecute truly culpable organisations, and has supported and actively contributed to the work behind this legislation. We feel that it sets the right balance, with sufficient provision to hold those ‘truly culpable’ to account whilst not placing an undue burden on responsible organisations. It also represents a ‘good fit’ with existing legislation.

· We support the government’s position that the offence should be targeted towards organisations and not individuals, and their exclusion of any individual or secondary liability from the Draft Bill.

· We welcome the government’s assertion that it is appropriate for proceedings to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions

· We are a little concerned about the provision of statutory criteria for consideration by the jury in reaching a verdict on the offence of corporate manslaughter. If such criteria are to be used, EEF feels it is important that they be worded to avoid ambiguity, and that the jury be directed to consider the whole spectrum of evidence presented at trial, not just those factors which fall within the scope of the criteria.

· EEF is broadly supportive of the approach to sanctions as set out in the bill. Our members would support the development of sentencing guidelines as this will ensure consistency and transparency in this area.

· Our members do have some concerns over the inclusion of a clause in the Bill allowing trial judges to impose remedial orders following conviction for this offence. Remediation is often a complex issue and should be addressed by a competent authority as swiftly as possible following the breach. We feel that there is already sufficient scope within the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 to fulfil these requirements, and that inclusion within this Bill represents unnecessary duplication of this provision.