| The
Government has published a consultation paper which
seeks comments on its proposals to replace the current
law on involuntary manslaughter. The changes relate
to introducing new offences of:
Corporate killing; a specific offence which is
intended to make companies accountable in the criminal
law where they fall far below what can be expected in
the circumstances.
Reckless killing; for example where a person
is aware of a risk that their conduct will cause death
or serious injury and it is unreasonable to take that
risk.
Killing by gross carelessness; for example where
there is a risk that someone's conduct would cause death
or serious injury which would have been apparent to
a reasonable person ; the person concerned is capable
of appreciating the risk; and either their conduct falls
far below what could be expected or they intend their
action to cause some injury or they unreasonably take
the risk that it might.
Killing when the intention was to cause only minor
injury but death was caused by an unforeseeable
event. |
|
"In
some areas we have come to different conclusions than
the Law Commission, for example, in relation to the
organisation to which the proposed offence of corporate
killing will apply or considered additional issues such
as who should investigate and prosecute the new offences."
The
consultation paper focuses on those areas where the
Government have reached a different conclusion to the
Law Commission's report of 1994. These include:
Applying
the offence of corporate killing to any trade or business
'undertakings' not just incorporated organisations.
This means that schools, hospital trusts, partnerships
and charities - in fact, all organisations with staff
- will be included (except the police and the army).
Allowing
other organisations such as the Health and Safety Executive
and Civil Aviation Authority to investigate and prosecute
the new offences. Inviting comments on to what extent
individual officers of companies and other undertakings
should be liable if they contribute to the corporate
offence and, if so, what penalty would be appropriate.
It
is proposed that the maximum penalty for a company found
guilty of corporate killing will be an unlimited fine
and a remedial order to correct the original cause of
any accident. Directors might also be liable to disqualification.
At present English law has two general homicide offences
of murder and manslaughter. Murder requires proof of
an intention to kill or cause serious injury. If there
are mitigating circumstances such as provocation then
the offence is one of manslaughter. If someone kills
but does not intend to cause death or serious injury
but was blameworthy in some way then this is often referred
to as "involuntary manslaughter". |
| Announcing
the consultation process Home Secretary, Jack Straw
said: "The present law on involuntary manslaughter needs
reform. It is too wide in its scope and this has often
led to problems for judges in sentencing. In particular
the law on corporate manslaughter is undeniably ineffective".
"All
too often in the past organisations have been able to
escape liability for errors where if an individual had
been responsible they would have been convicted".
"Our
aim is to simplify this area of the law and make it
more effective and understandable. The Law Commission
produced invaluable proposals which we have built on,
but these are complex issues and we are determined to
get them right".
story
continued next column... |
|
A demolition company, Capital Developments Ltd was fined
£40,000 at Guildford Crown Court following an
accident in which a site worker, Keith Purcell, fell
to his death through the roof of a former Do-It-All
store.
It
was Mr Purcell's first day on site. A colleague warned
him to be careful of the roof windows when he was collecting
and stacking two-foot long pieces of timber - but he
stepped backwards onto unprotected roof lights and fell
eight and a half metres onto the concrete floor below.
He sustained fatal head injuries.
Prosecuting
on behalf of HSE Christopher Kerr explained: "The
windows were glass and would not support a person's
weight. Although some of the windows had been covered,
they were not secured in place. The roof windows were
particularly dangerous because they had become discoloured
and it was very difficult to differentiate them from
the roof sheets."
The
chief executive of Capital Developments, Tom Greenham
could give no reason why the roof windows had not been
covered when interviewed following the accident, said
Mr Kerr, adding that no safety nets had been erected
inside the building to prevent anyone falling to the
ground.
When
fining the company for failing to ensure the safety
of employees, Judge John Bull said that if the safety
standards which had been imposed since Mr Purcell's
death had been in place beforehand, the accident may
not have happened.
Source: Horley & Gatwick Mirror |
|
An experienced quarryman, Ronald Cyster, died at the
Alfred McAlpine Slate's Penhryn Quarry when he fell
nearly 60 feet after a rock face collapsed on him. Mr
Cyster had been involved in a sealing operation to remove
loose rock from the quarry face.
At
Caernarfon Crown Court, prosecuting barrister Jodie
Swallow said that Me Cyster was a supervisor and was
not regarded as a "risk-taker" by his colleagues.
But there was a "macho culture" at the quarry;
safety equipment was often not used.
When
the accident happened, Mr Cyster had not been wearing
a harness; his employers had failed to implement and
maintain a system where the use of such a harness was
mandatory, she said.
In
1994 three risk assessments had been carried out by
the company which had identified the danger of workers
falling over a quarry face due to a rock collapse. In
1997, two harnesses were brought on to the site - but
no instructions were given workers about their use.
""It was left purely on an informal basis
as a matter for the individual. The result was perhaps
inevitable and they were rarely used, " she said.
Although
the HSE accepted that Mr Cyster would have fallen even
if he had been wearing a harness, "no-one knows
whether or not his injuries would have been fatal."
In
fining Alfred McAlpine Slate £50,000, judge Eifon
Roberts QC said: "It was a risk of which the defendants
knew or ought to have known and one on which they should
have acted."
Source: Caernarfon & Denbigh Herald |
