Under section 1 of the Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which came into force in April 2008, an organisation is guilty of corporate manslaughter if the way in which it manages or organises its activities causes a person's death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.
For an organisation to be found guilty of this offence, a substantial element of the breach must have been in the way that its senior management managed or organised its activities.
On 15 February 2011, Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings (the Company) became the first company to be convicted of the new offence of corporate manslaughter under the Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (the CHA). The Company was fairly small with only eight employees, so it was relatively easy for the prosecution to identify senior management and their role within the Company for the purposes of satisfying section 1 of the CHA.
The prosecution arose because a geologist employed by the Company died from asphyxiation when, in breach of industry guidance, he was working alone in an unsupported 3.5 metre pit which collapsed. The jury found that the Company's system of work in digging pits was wholly and unnecessarily dangerous and that it had been in gross breach of its duty of care in failing to comply with industry and health and safety guidance.
In deciding the penalty, the court took into account the size of the Company and its financial state. Field J noted that the Company was in a "parlous" financial state, but still fined it £385,000, payable over ten years. No additional order for the payment of the prosecution's costs (£140,000) was made, although the judge indicated that this would have been ordered, had the Company been in a better financial state. In his judgment, Field J stated that such a fine could put the Company into liquidation and result in job losses. However, he said that, whilst this would be unfortunate, it was unavoidable as it was a "consequence of the serious breach".
On 12 May 2011, the Court of Appeal rejected the Company's appeal against its conviction and upheld the fine.
The Crown Prosecution Service has indicated that it is reviewing other cases for possible prosecution under the CHA. It is therefore essential for employers to ensure that they have in place appropriate safety and risk assessment procedures which are regularly reviewed
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
