|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday 18th April
Ten Minute Rule Bill on "Corporate
Killing"
On
Tuesday 18 April, 2000, at 3.30pm, Andrew Dismore MP
(Lab, Hendon) will speak to a Ten Minute Rule Bill on
the reform to the law of Corporate Manslaughter. He
will call for reform of the law which currently allows
large companies to escape prosecution even when deaths
have resulted from their gross negligence or even recklessness
Delay
The Government has been promising reform ever since
October 1997 when Jack Straw made an announcement at
the Labour Party Conference that the Government would
enact a new offence of corporate killing, along the
lines of the Law Commission's 1996 report on Involuntary
Manslaughter. After the Southall disaster and then the
Paddington disaster, Government ministers have promised
a number of times that a consultation document is imminent.
Almost three years have passed since Jack Straw's promise,
but nothing has yet been published.
A draft of the document is currently with the Ministerial
Committee on Home and Social Affairs, chaired by the
Deputy PrimeMinister - but has been stuck there for
many months.
"Leak"
The Centre for Corporate Accountability has been told
by a number of very reliable Government sources that
the consultation document contains a recommendation
that the Health and Safety Executive will be given the
authority to prosecute companies for this new offence.
The Centre is concerned that such a proposal could be
included in the consultation document and the Centre
has written this week to the Deputy PrimeMinister, the
Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Rt Hon.
Micheal Meacher explaining why this would simply compound
the existing problems.
In summary our concerns are:
-
responsibility to prosecute for one of the most
serious offences, should remain with the Crown Prosecution
Service, not a regulatory agency;
-
it will downgrade the new offence into a 'regulatory
offence';
-
the HSE has a very poor prosecution policy in relation
to the offences for which the HSE is currently responsibility.
It only prosecutes after 20% of deaths and 1% of
major injuries
-
it will result in even fewer company directors or
managers being prosecuted for manslaughter.
Contact
David Bergman (Exec. Dir) 0207 490 4494
Andrew Dismore M.P, Pager: 0181 345 6789 x 834544
Return to Press
Releases
Text of Letter to Ministers, Dated 17 April 2000
Dear Rt. Hon John Prescott M.P.,
I am writing to you in your capacity as the Chair of
the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs.
It has come to my attention that the Home Office consultation
document - currently circulating amongst Ministers -
concerning reform to the law of manslaughter will propose
that the Health and Safety Executive is given responsibility
for the prosecution of companies for the new proposed
offence of 'corporate killing'.
The Centre is very concerned that such a suggestion
is even being proposed in a consultation document. This
is for the following reasons.
-
The offence of corporate killing is supposed to
replace the current offence of corporate manslaughter.
Manslaughter is one of the most serious crimes in
British law. Prosecution for such an offence should
clearly rest with the Crown Prosecution Service,
not with a regulatory agency
-
What justification could there be for allowing companies
to be prosecuted by a regulatory agency, when individuals
will continue to be prosecuted, for the same offence,
by the Crown Prosecution Service. This will clearly
tend to downgrade the crime of corporate killing
in comparison to the other manslaughter offences
concerning individuals.
-
By giving prosecution responsibility to the HSE,
the new offence is being symbolically downgraded
from being a serious "crime of violence"
to a "regulatory" offence.
-
The HSE is not even capable of prosecuting companies
for the offences for which it currently has responsibility.
The Centre for Corporate Accountability gave evidence
to the Select Committee on Environment, Transport
and the Regions that only 20% of workplace death
and 1% of major injuries result in a prosecution,
when the expected level should be closer to 50%.
How is it possible to have confidence in an agency
which has such a poor prosecution record?
-
Such a proposal would lead to a great deal of confusion
between the CPS and the HSE. Which of these bodies
will look at the evidence and determine whether
(i) both the company and a director, or (ii) only
a director, or (iii) only the company will be prosecuted?
Will it mean that the CPS will no longer look at
the evidence relating to the culpability of directors
or managers? If the CPS will still look, will there
be two agencies looking at the same set of facts
- each of them separately deciding whether a prosecution
should take place for a manslaughter-like offence?
Clearly the CPS is in a better position to prosecute
for all manslaughter-like offences.
-
There is already concern that the enactment of the
new offence of corporate killing may well have the
unfortunate result of allowing individual directors
or managers who have acted with gross negligence
to escape prosecution as individuals. This likelihood
is likely to substantially increase, if the CPS
is responsible for the prosecution of individuals
whilst the HSE is responsible for companies. Why
will the CPS get involved if the HSE is considering
the evidence already?
-
If the HSE is involved in prosecution, this is likely
to marginalise the police from investigation. In
our view this will mean that the quality of investigation
would be reduced and it is less likely that there
will be consideration of whether a director or manager
may have acted with gross negligence.
It
is our understanding that the HSE itself 'lobbied' to
be given responsibility. In our view there is simply
no justification for the HSE to be given this power.
If the Home Office consultation document is published
with this recommendation, a document that should be
applauded will be in fact severely criticised by many
parties concerned about issues of corporate accountability.
We hope that you can take these matters into account
before publishing the consultation document.
Yours sincerely
David Bergman
EXEC. DIRECTOR
|
|
|
|
|
