Home
About
Newsletter
Advice & Assistance
Researh & Briefings
Deaths, Inquests & Prosecutions
Corporate  Crime & safety Database
Safety Statistics
Obtaining Safety Information
CCA Responses to Consultation Documents
CCA Advocacy
CCA Press Releases
CCA Publications
Support the CCA
Bibliography
Search the CCA site
Contact Us
Quick Links ->
Manslaughter - Councils

The only organisations that can be prosecuted for manslaughter are 'companies'.

Local councils have been established as "corporate bodies" by legislation - section 2 of the Local Government Act 1972. As such, in relation to the offence of manslaughter, they can be treated just like any other company and the same principles of liability apply.

This means, in effect, that a Local Council can be prosecuted only if charges are first laid against:

(a) an individual person and
(b) that individual is senior enough within the council to be deemed in law to be a 'controlling mind' of the council

In such a situation, where there is sufficient evidence against an individual senior council officer, the Council (as a corporate body) can separately be charged with manslaughter.

The guilt or innocence of the Council is entirely dependent upon the guilt or innocence of the individual charged. If the individual is acquitted, the Council is acquitted; and if the individual is found guilty, so is the Council.

An individual can be charged with manslaughter only if there is evidence that the individual's conduct was 'grossly negligent' and that the conduct was a 'significant cause' of the death.

If a council is found guilty, the only penalty available to the courts is a cash fine.

A council can only be prosecuted if the individual being prosecuted is a controlling mind. If a supervisor or junior manager was being prosecuted for manslaughter, it would not be possible to prosecute the Council.

The Prosecution of Barrow Council, February 2004
To read about this prosecution, click here.

The way this would have happened is as follows. A police investigation would have taken place. Evidence suggesting that there was sufficient evidence to charge
Gillian Beckingham, the Council Design Services Manager, for manslaughter would have been identified. The evidence would have been passed to the Crown prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS would then have decided that:
(a) there was sufficient evidence to charge Gillian Beckingham:
(b) Gillian Beckingham was a senior enough person within the company to be deemed a 'controlling mind' of the Council
(c) as a result the CPS decided to charge the Council

Council's 'Controlling mind'
How do you identify whether an individual is a controlling mind of the Council.

There is no clear law as to which persons within a council can be deemed to be its 'controlling minds'. It may well be possible, for example, for Barrow council to argue that Gillian Beckingham was not senior enough within the council to be considered as a 'controlling mind'. If the Council is able to persuade the courts that this is so, the company would be acquitted - whatever the guilt or innocence of Gillian Beckingham.

To read more about what the courts have said on who is a controlling mind of a company, click here

 


Home -> CCA Press Releases
Page last updated on February 10, 2005