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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll