CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER

Corporate Manslaughter

Abstract

Despite a gestation period extending over thirteen years, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is a disappointment. It is limited in its scope, restricted in its range of potential defendants and regressive to the extent that, like the discredited identification doctrine before it, it allows its focus to be deflected from systemic fault to individual fault. As a result the Act may not curb the type of short-sighted risk management decisions that can lead to the deaths of innocent workers, consumers and members of the public. Further, by requiring DPP consent to prosecute, the Act threatens to entangle corporate manslaughter prosecutions in the political process to an unacceptable degree. Despite these weaknesses, the symbolic significance of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 may ultimately transcend its methodological deficiencies.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER I4

Introduction4

Background of the Study5

CHAPTER II7

Review of Related Literature7

An Overview of the Act7

Comparing The Uk, Australian and Canadian Jurisdiction On Corporate Manslaughter13

Canadian Jurisdiction and Australian Jurisdicaiton15

A Misdirected Focus On Homicide20

A Focus On Corporate Liability To The Exclusion Of Individual Liability23

A Failure To Achieve A More Realistic Test Of Corporate Liability30

The Requirement Of Dpp Consent34

The Bigger Picture: The Symbolic And Practical Effects Of The Act37

CHAPTER IV41

Discussion41

CHAPTER V43

Conclusion43

CHAPTER I

Introduction

This study begins with an overview of the key features of the Act. In the sections that follow the issues identified in the preceding paragraph will be probed in greater depth. In the conclusion I will suggest that the primary value of the Act may lie not in its test of corporate liability but in the very fact of its existence. The Act's symbolic value may ultimately transcend its methodological deficiencies. What impact it will have in practice, however, can only be a matter of conjecture, as much will depend on how vigorously the government enforces the Act and how expansively or restrictively the organization interpret it. The genesis of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 can be traced to a 1994 consultation paper of the Law Commission which reviewed the law of involuntary manslaughter. Included in the report was a section which addressed the responsibility of corporations for causing deaths. A recommendation for an offence of 'corporate killing'3 followed in 1996 after the Commission had received and considered feedback from its earlier paper.

The baton then passed to the Home Office. In 2000 it brought forth a consultation document4 inviting comment on specified aspects of its version of a corporate killing offence, which was modeled on that of the Commission. There then ensued another consultation period in which over 150 responses were received. A draft corporate manslaughter bill was finally published in 2005, followed by a bill in 2006 which ultimately became the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Despite the time available to study the proposed legislation and the breadth of input along the way, the 2007 Act is somewhat of a disappointment. It is limited in its vision and lacking in imagination. Further, it retains many of the evidentiary problems associated with the 'identification ...