|
Hatfield
Manslaughter Trial - CCA Comment
What
is the significance of the ruling?
David
Bergman, Director of the CCA said:
"It
is important to note that (i) the judge has not
given his reasons and (ii) every case is evidence
specific. However, it is also important to recognise
that:
| • |
no
director or senior manager of a medium or large
sized company has ever been convicted ofrmanslaughter; |
| • |
it
follows (due to the legal corporate liability
test) that no medium or large sized company
itself has been convicted of manslaughter |
| • |
the
11 directors convicted of manslaughter following
work-related death all involve small companies
(see
here) |
| • |
the
three large companies that have been prosecuted
for manslaughter - have all been acquitted before
a jury has been allowed to come to a verdict:
| - |
P&O
European Ferries following the Zeebrugge
Disaster in 1987; |
| - |
Great
Western Trains following Southall Disaster
in 1997; |
| - |
and
now Balfour Beatty following Hatfield
Disaster; |
|
It
is the CCA's view that the collapse of the manslaughter
charges supports the argument for two reforms.
| (a) |
Director
Accountability: Even, at the best of times,
with what appears to be clear evidence of gross
negligence on the part of directors, it will
always be difficult to prosecute directors of
large companies for manslaughter. They are remote
- both geographically and hierarchically - from
the incident that resulted in the death. Between
them and the incident, there will be multiple
layers of management, all with some form of
safety responsibilities. In that situation,
it will always be difficult to show that decisions
or failures to make decisions of a director
were both grossly negligent and a significant
cause of the death. So there are inherent difficulties
in prosecuting director of large companies for
manslaughter
However the law increases the chances of a director
escaping accountability - as it does not, at
present, impose any positive duties upon company
directors in relation to health and safety.
All duties are instead placed upon 'the company'
as employer, etc. The law does not for example
impose a duty upon directors to take reasonable
steps to ensure that the company is complying
with the law.
This absence of duties makes it particularly
difficult to identify exactly what a director
should or should not have done in relation to
safety - and therefore difficult to show that
his conduct was or was not grossly negligent
and a cause of the death.
In 2000, the Government committed itself to
legislation on directors safety duties 'when
parliamentary time allows'. The current status
of this commitment is that the Health and Safety
Commission is due to advise government in December
2005 about whether legislation in this area
is appropriate. To
read about this click here |
| (b) |
Accountability
of companies and Organisations
At present the only way in which a company can
be convicted of manslaughter is through the
successful prosecution of a director or senior
manager. This means that serious management
failures that are the responsibility of a number
of individuals within the organisation can not
result in the company being prosecuted - however
serious the failure.
That is why there has been a demand for reform
- and this failure in prosecution is yet another
reason why legal reform in this area is required."
The Government is consulting on this at present.
To
read about this click here |
The Centre for Corporate Accountability is a
charity advising those bereaved from work-related
deaths, and working on issues of safety, law enforcement
and corporate accountability.
|
