[close window]

22 May 2003

Corporate Manslaughter

I would like to follow up your comments in the House of Commons about the possibility of legislation on corporate manslaughter and the press statement which your department issued on this yesterday. I have particular interest as I represent the parents of Simon Jones, whose death at Shoreham docks in 1998 received considerable press interest and indeed was subject to an adjournment debate I introduced on 19 March 2002.

I have two specific concerns. The first relates to the point at which legislation on corporate manslaughter will be introduced. You stated this week during the second reading of the Criminal Justice Bill that:

"... we have made a decision that we should publish a draft Bill. We believe that it is right to have extensive discussions on the issues in relation to corporate manslaughter, and that it would be right and proper to listen to the strongly-held views of those on all sides, including those most affected, and we will do that as soon as possible. I will not give either a timetable for the publication nor an assurance about what mode of trial such cases would be dealt with under (HC Deb col. 730 19 May 2003)"

Your comments in the House simply do not match the enthusiasm that this announcement has received in recent press reports. Forgive me for being somewhat suspicious, but the government pledged to bring in a Bill on corporate manslaughter in 1997. It didn�t. In 2001 the government again said it would bring in a corporate manslaughter Bill. It hasn�t. It is also worth remembering that draft Bills do not, by definition, necessarily swiftly reach the statute book; simply look at the draft Mental Health Bill.

I am even more suspicious that Ministers are refusing to make any firm commitment about when such a Bill will be introduced; even to the extent of when a draft Bill might even be published. Given that this announcement has only been made to dissuade around 80 Labour MPs rebelling on the Criminal Justice Bill, and that the government did not support amendments on corporate manslaughter tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill endorsed by the Law Commission, I am left with the feeling that once the Criminal Justice Bill reaches the statute book the real politick reasons for mentioning any draft Bill on corporate manslaughter evaporate.

This brings me to my second concern which relates to the mode of trail under which corporate manslaughter would be judged. Your comments in the House make it quite clear you won�t be drawn on this. Insofar as I have any indication as to what mode of trail might be proposed, the press statement issued by your department on 21 May states:

"... the legislation will be targeted at companies themselves, which is the area of weakness in the current law. No new burdens will be placed on companies which already comply fully with Health and Safety legislation. The criminal liability of individual directors will not be targeted by the proposals"

Doubtless some sort of legislation is better than no legislation, but the value of any legislation on corporate manslaughter will be somewhat undermined if company directors are not held accountable for their negligence on health and safety leading to fatalities in the workplace. I would like to refer to the case of Simon Jones, which is typical of the need for legislation on corporate manslaughter in relation to company directors. As I understand it there are two categories of offence as regards a work-related death: manslaughter and regulatory offences. Manslaughter requires evidence of gross negligence as against simple negligence for a regulatory offence. That immediately creates a problem as regards corporate accountability. In a letter to me from your department on 24 October 2001 it was stated that although the government intended to legislate, they must:

"ensure that we balance the entitlement of the public to see justice being done and the need to protect corporations that have taken all reasonable precautions from an unjust prosecution"

However, the letter went on to state that the government felt that they must also ensure that:

"the emphasis is on the responsibility of the corporation itself, as a legal body, taking responsibility for its actions ... however, individual officers could still be prosecuted if there was sufficient evidence"

By distinguishing between manslaughter and regulatory offences in relation to deaths at work, one government objective is being cancelled out by the other. Surely, on a simple interpretation, logic might suggest that a work-related death through negligence is no different from a gross act of negligence and hence the presumption of corporate manslaughter. Why do the government feel the need to distinguish between manslaughter and regulatory offences? What is the difference between gross negligence and negligence? And moreover, it is clear to me that, if the government were to introduce legislation so that directors or managers were responsible for deaths at work, the new protocol would create a far clearer line of accountability. Directors are, after all, responsible for employees in all other corporate aspects.

I firmly believe that the logic of this is evident from the case of Simon Jones where after a recent Crown court case, the company responsible, Euromin, was fined only �50,000 for what was described as a corporate death. It perturbs me that the law is to be applied the wrong way round. I hope you would agree that surely corporations should fined if they fail to secure safety; but manslaughter, and hence prison sentences, should be invoked for those directors whose failure on safety results in fatality.

I would be grateful for your comments.

Tony Baldry