header-logo header-logo

14 November 2025 / Tom McNeill
Issue: 8139 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Fraud , Bribery , Company , Compliance , Risk management
printer mail-detail

Getting corporates in the dock

235678
The senior manager test—as set out in the Crime and Policing Bill—prioritises deterrence over strict legal fairness, writes Tom McNeill
  • The Crime and Policing Bill includes a senior manager test, making organisations criminally liable for offences committed by senior managers while acting within their authority.
  • This would expand corporate liability for many offences beyond principles that required proof of direct corporate fault.
  • The change reflects a broader shift towards treating corporate culture as culpable, prioritising deterrence and ease of prosecution over fairness or consistency.

The Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently working its way through the UK Parliament, has its fair share of critics—and not without good reason.

The Bill includes a provision to make organisations criminally liable for any offence committed by a senior manager while acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority—the senior manager test. Various commentators have pointed out the unfairness that could arise by not including an ‘intending to benefit the organisation’ provision.

What if

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll