In this article
Corporate manslaughter is a controversial topic in the UK. As with any person’s death, there is always someone at fault, whether it be the person themselves or someone else entirely. The complicated part is correctly identifying who this blame lies with.
As it is a complex area of law, we’ve written this blog to cover the basics of corporate manslaughter. If you have a case that you think we can help with, contact our team via 0203 007 5500 or info@brittontime.com
What is corporate manslaughter?
Corporate manslaughter is the act of a business, company or organisation causing a person’s death, either directly or indirectly. It is a form of white-collar crime and, thus, falls under criminal law.
Senior management must have managed the activities, that led to the person’s death, in a way that grossly breaches their duty of care.
What is the difference between corporate manslaughter and gross negligence?
Corporate manslaughter focuses on the precautions set up by senior management to ensure that the business provides an adequate duty of care for all.
On the other hand, gross negligence relates directly to the individual. For example, if an accident occurs on a building site, the person responsible is liable if they had prior safety training yet chose to ignore it.
Because of these differences, it’s common for a gross negligence case to try and instead prove corporate manslaughter. For example, the builder at fault for the accident on site may try to prove that they did not receive adequate training from their superiors.
Talk to us now. Save costs further down the line.
Save yourself potentially thousands of pounds by seeking advice now. Speak to us today for more information.
Lines open 24/7
020 3007 5500
What is duty of care?
Corporate manslaughter focuses on the precautions set up by senior management so ensure that the business provides an adequate duty of care for all.
On the other hand, gross negligence relates directly to the individual. For example, if an accident occurs on a building site, the person responsible is liable if they had prior safety training yet chose to ignore it.
Because of these differences, it’s common for a gross negligence case to try and instead prove corporate manslaughter. For example, the builder at fault for the accident on site may try to prove that they did not receive adequate training from their superiors.
When was the Corporate Manslaughter Act introduced?
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act came into effect in 2007. The act ensures that businesses can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter.
However, there has been much scrutiny over how effective this act has been. Since its introduction, there have been fewer than 25 businesses to face a corporate manslaughter charge.
Many question the legislation and the complexity of following a prosecution through. As you must prove that the business’ actions fell far below reasonable expectations, you can argue what ‘reasonable’ actually means within the context.
Notable examples.
Herald of Free Enterprise Ferry Calamity 1987
The MS Herald of Free Enterprise was a ferry that capsized after leaving the port of Zeebruge in Belgium. The owner of the ferry was Townsend Thoresen, a ferry company based in the U.K. and U.S.
After leaving the port with its bow door open, it immediately flooded, resulting in the deaths of 193 passengers and crew.
The cause of the capsize was found to be the assistant boatswain, who’d fallen asleep instead of closing the door before departure. However, the official inquiry instead placed the blame on the supervisors and poor management of the company.
Southall Rail Disaster 1997
The Southall Rail Disaster occurred on the Great Western Main Line in Southall – West London. A high-speed passenger train failed to respond to warning signals and collided with a freight train at high speed, killing 7 and injuring 139.
The passenger train company failed to inform Railtrack, the company that owned the tracks and signalling, that the automatic warning system in the train was off. Because of this, the signaller set up a route where the AWS would automatically stop the train and allow the freight train to cross in front of it.
Originally, the train driver was charged with manslaughter by gross negligence. However, these charges were later dropped. Instead, the Great Western Railway was fined 1.5 million for not having a system in place when AWS was non-functional.
Grenfell Tower Fire 2017
In 2017, a set of flats in North Kensington caught fire due to an electrical fault in a resident’s refrigerator. The fire then spread rapidly up the exterior of the building due to the new cladding and external insulation.
The fire killed 72 people, with a further 2 dying in hospital from injuries later. It was officially the worst residential fire in the UK since the Second World War.
Whilst the inquiry is still ongoing, the two main issues of concern are:
- The management of the building by the council
- The responses of the emergency services, council and other government agencies
Whilst prosecution taking too long is understandably causing frustration, it’s important that the authorities gather as much evidence as possible before moving forward.
Have a coporate manslaughter case?
Don’t worry, we’re here to give the advice you need when you need it. Just contact us to arrange an appointment.
Lines open 24/7 020 3007 5500
What are the corporate manslaughter sentencing guidelines?
The guidelines for corporate manslaughter sentencing differ based on a variety of things. These include determing the seriousness of the offence, the range of the potential fine and the aggravating or mitigating factors.
Determining seriousness
By default, all corporate manslaughter cases are very serious, as all involve a death and some kind of fault. The court must then measure:
- How foreseeable was a serious injury?
- Was there more than one death, or was there a high risk of more than one death occurring?
- How far short of the appropriate accepted standard did the organisation fall?
- How commonly does the organisation commit this kind of breach?
By answering these questions, the court can determine the level of culpability the company will have in the matter.
Fine ranges
| Size of organisation | Fine range |
|---|---|
| Very large organisation (Turnover greatly exceeding £50 million) |
Will need to find a range that accurately reflects the turnover of company |
| Large organisation (Turnover exceeds £50 million) |
Ranging from £3 million to £20 million |
| Medium organisation (Between £10 million to £50 million turnover) |
Ranging from £1.2 million £7.5 million |
| Small organisation (Between £2 million to £10 million turnover) |
Ranging from £350,000 to £2.8 million |
| Micro organisation (Up to £2 million turnover) |
Ranging from £180,000 to £800,000 |
Aggravating and mitigating factors
Below is a list of factors that may affect the sentencing of a corporate manslaughter case:
Aggravating Factors:
- Previous convictions
- Cost-cutting at the expense of safety
- Concealment of illegal or unsafe activities
- Obstruction of justice
- Poor health and safety track record
- Breach of any court order
Mitigating Factors:
- No prior convictions
- Evidence of steps taken to remedy the issue
- Good health and safety track record
- High level of cooperation
- Other events contributing to death
- Effective procedures now in place
Ensure that you explain the full scenario to your solicitor so that they can accurately gauge your legal position.
How can Britton and Time Solicitors help?
Corporate manslaughter is an incredibly complex area of law that will require an expert to handle correctly. It requires a level of scrutiny that is impossible to reach, unless you consult a professional.
Luckily, our legal team here at Britton and Time Solicitors have years of experience in dealing with such complex matters. For a potential case, our solicitors will assess your position and the strength of your claim.
If you think you have a corporate manslaughter case, get in touch today by calling 0203 007 5500 or emailing us directly at info@brittontime.com
0 Comments