Search

The article offers information on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 in Great Britain, intended to abolish gross negligence manslaughter. Topics discussed include the issues with identification doctrine in criminal liability for corporate manslaughter before this act; the case law for corporate manslaughter; and the fine that can be imposed on corporations in cases on negligence manslaughter.

The article discusses the effects of gross criminal negligence on professional tribunals. Topics discussed include information on the gross negligence manslaughter; need of professional standards and conduct in medical practice; and the death of the victim due to the breach of duty and the patient safety culture.

The article presents the author's views on the number of cases related to corporate manslaughter. The author, on going through a study of corporate manslaughter cases, found that there was a strong prima facie case for prosecuting about 40 cases of corporate manslaughter a year. The author insists the main obstacles to prosecution include a lack of resources and political will to prosecute, as well as a lack of training and legal understanding of how the law applied to corporate defendants.

The author examines the impact of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which came into effect in April 2008. He analyzes the decision of the Manchester Crown Court in R v Lion Steel Equipment Ltd., which indicates worrying clues about the manner in which courts will approach the imposition of fines. The author also discusses other court cases which covered the issue of level of fines.

The article discusses the court case R. v. Evans involving Gemma Evans and her mother, Andrea Townsend, who were convicted of the gross negligence manslaughter of the former's 16-year-old half sister, Carly Townsend. Carly died due to a heroin overdose at Andrea's home. Evans, who received a four-year custodial sentence, appealed based on the grounds that the trial judge was wrong to have directed the jury that it was a situation capable of giving rise to a duty of care.