header-logo header-logo

08 February 2007
Issue: 7259 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Custody deaths under spotlight

News

Human rights groups have hit out at plans to exempt prison and police custody from corporate manslaughter legislation.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill, which reached report stage in the House of Lords this week, creates an offence where gross corporate negligence leads to a person’s death in the workplace or in other settings.

However, while the legislation applies to police forces and government departments, as well as private companies, it excludes deaths in prison and police custody.

Now a coalition of law reform groups—JUSTICE, Liberty, the Prison Reform Trust and Inquest—has suggested a set of amendments to include deaths in prison and police custody in the offence.

Inquest’s casework service says there were more than 2,000 deaths in police and prison custody between 1995 and 2005, and claims that many of these deaths raise “issues of negligence, systemic failures to care for the vulnerable, institutional violence, racism, inhumane treatment and abuse of human rights”.

Despite a pattern of cases where inquest juries have found overwhelming evidence of unlawful and excessive use of force or gross neglect, no police or prison officer has been held responsible, either at an individual level or at a senior management level, for institutional and systemic failures to improve training and other policies. This is even the case when inquests return unlawful killing verdicts.

The coalition adds: “The government points to public inquiries as an alternative route to accountability—but it refused to hold public inquiries into the deaths of both Zahid Mubarek and Joseph Scholes.

“In both cases, the government fought the families’ attempts to have a public inquiry held in the civil courts. Without a legal victory by the family, the Zahid Mubarek Inquiry would not have been held.”

Sally Ireland, senior legal officer at JUSTICE, says: “The bottom line is that too many people—including children—are dying in custody and that the current law is not doing enough to prevent it.”

Issue: 7259 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll