Corporate Manslaughter Prosecution

The trial date has now been set for the first prosecution under the Corporate Manslaughter Act. It is due to take place from 23 February 2010 in Bristol Crown Court and has been listed to run for six weeks. This trial is expected to give considerable guidance as to how the Act is going to be interpreted and used.

The Corporate Manslaughter Act came into effect in April 2008 after a number of failed corporate prosecutions – including those relating to the Southall rail crash and the difficulties in succeeding in such prosecutions. Much debate was had as to the implications and as to how widely and when it would be used.

The first prosecution under the Act was announced a year later in April 2009, against a geotechnical firm – Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings - in relation to the death of a 26 year old employee who was killed when the trench he was working in, collecting soil samples, collapsed. Company director Peter Eaton has been charged with gross negligence, manslaughter, and for a breach of Section 37 of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act.

Of particular interest will be the way in which the court approaches any sentencing at the end of the trial. Under the Act there is no upper limit on fines to be imposed and it was widely expected that the Act would be used to 'make an example' of companies with poor attitudes to health and safety. Much of the expectation of the Act was that it would focus on large corporate entities but Cotswold Geotechnical holdings is a small company. A large fine would probably be the end of the business. It will be interesting to see how the courts approach this. There is scope to make a 'publicity order' and it is anticipated that, if the prosecution is successful, this is the more likely route to be used by way of penalty.

One of the key features of the Act is looking at the responsibility of 'senior management' – the definition of which will be different for each company. It was hoped that further clarity would be given as to the scope of this definition but in this case, with a two director business, it is unlikely that this issue will be addressed.

Are you aware?

Some factors to consider under the Act:

For there to be a prosecution there must have been a fatality. However that fatality need not have occurred straight away as a result of the events in question – and the events in question need not be the only factor in the resulting death. It is sufficient for the failures of the business concerned to have...